Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 30, 2012 in Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, Eschatology | 4 comments

Review of Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer by MacArthur and Mayhue

Why I Read Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer

Given that I was just ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America and am strongly committed to covenant theology, one might wonder why I would choose to read a book that forcefully presents dispensational premillennialism. I suppose I had several reasons: I wanted to see how current dispensationalists present their position (as opposed to the now-outdated Dispensationalism Today by Ryrie). I also wanted to be challenged again to know how dispensationalists are responding to the views that I hold. Also, given that this is a collection of chapters from professors at the Master’s Seminary, I hoped to see some more cogent argumentation on behalf of the view so that I could be challenged to think through the issues critically again.

Why This is a Hard Review to Write

This review is tough to write primarily because of the nature of the book as a collection of chapters from different authors. Some chapters are definitely of higher quality than others, so it is hard to evaluate the work as a whole.

This review is tough to write for another reason: I found the book to be, on the whole, incredibly unpersuasive because it really fails to interact seriously with opposing views, choosing instead to use tired arguments that are no more persuasive now than they were 50 years ago.

Lastly, this review is tough to write because I have a great deal of respect for several of the men who contributed to this volume (which is not to say that there are some I don’t respect, only that I haven’t heard of all of them).

Chapter 1: What is Dispensationalism? (Michael Vlach)

This chapter is a decent chapter within the book, as Vlach does present some clarifications about dispensationalism that are helpful. Most significant in my opinion is his discussion of the supposed “literal” hermeneutic of dispensationalism. He correctly articulates that the issue is not precisely one of being literal, but rather of testamental priority. I still found his presentation unconvincing (as he still rejects the idea of the church replacing Israel, which is not how covenant theologians today formulate the question), but it is helpful for him to articulate that the hermeneutical question is more complex than simply a literal/figurative paradigm. I would also say that Vlach’s defenses of his six foundational elements of dispensationalism are not compelling at all, but it would perhaps be unfair to expect him to thoroughly defend his position in a chapter merely meant to present what dispensationalism is.

Chapter 2: What is Dispensationalism Not? (Michael Vlach)

This chapter was for the most part helpful, as Vlach responds to unfair characterizations of dispensationalism in the past. Because so many dispensationalists have been Arminian, and because Scofield and others originally did present two ways of salvation for the Jews and the church (notwithstanding Vlach’s desire to downplay this point), dispensationalism has unfairly been closely associated with Arminian soteriology in the past. Vlach makes the case strongly at this point. Arminianism is not inherent to the system. Vlach’s case is a bit weaker when he deals with the suggestions that the seven dispensations are inherent to the system. While modern dispensationalists may disagree with the number of dispensations or even the exact nature of the dispensations, the reality is that dispensations are an organizing principle for the system. Certainly the distinction between Israel and the church as two separate peoples of God is more integral to the system, but it seems unfair to downplay the dispensations themselves, when that is how the system has organized all of human history, regardless of the number presented. That is one of the significant issues that dispensationalists need to deal with, considering that the Scriptures seem prima facie to present a much different organizing principle: covenants.

Chapter 3: Why Futuristic Premillennialism? by Richard Mayhue

I do have to make one note at the outset that really applies to this whole volume. It seems that the Master’s Seminary faculty wants to avoid the label “dispensational premillennialism” for some reason, but it seems strange to me to give a new label that is not really normal in this discussion. Regarding the content of Mayhue’s chapter itself, I must say that it seems like quite a regress from Vlach’s first chapter on dispensationalism. Whereas Vlach is clearer on articulating the hermeneutical difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology, Mayhue returns to the tired and unhelpful claim that only dispensationalism uses a “literal” hermeneutic. Vlach articulated the real difference—testamental priority—whereas Mayhue doesn’t seem to acknowledge that at all. This comes out quite significantly when he does mention the biblical covenants, for he cites all sorts of OT verses about the covenants, but then fails to ever engage how the New Testament discusses those texts. E.g., he discusses the Davidic covenant, but doesn’t discuss Acts 2, and he discusses Amos 9 without referencing Acts 15. Those are serious shortcomings.

Particularly egregious is his failure to distinguish between the Reformed analogy of faith—let Scripture interpret Scripture—and allegory. He regularly interchanges “allegorical interpretation” with “spiritualized interpretation” when these really refer to separate things. Additionally, nowhere does he acknowledge the importance of genre in applying our hermeneutic to a particular text.

Further, he makes broad, sweeping claims about the inadequacy of covenant theology without backing up nearly any of his claims. For example, he says there is no evidence for the covenants of grace and works, but does not at any point discuss the evidence adduced by covenant theologians in favor of them (e.g., the elements of the suzerain vassal treaty in Genesis 1-2, Hosea 6:7, Ephesians 2:12, etc). In many of these claims, he assumes exactly what he needs to prove. For example, he regularly refers to Daniel’s seventieth week as being future, and yet he never even discusses the fact that it is a critical dividing line in this debate. The dispensationalist view of Daniel 9 is perhaps the most tenuous in its overall line of argumentation, and yet neither Mayhue nor anyone else ever seems to feel the need to defend their view of it.

Chapter 4: Why a Pretribulational Rapture? by Richard Mayhue

As someone who disagrees with the fundamental tenets of premillennialism, I found this chapter to assume things that need to be proved at nearly every point. However, the intent was more to convince post-tribulationalists rather than amillennialists. As far as that intent is concerned, I suppose it does a decent job, but not being one who believes the tribulation is future, I can’t really say whether it would have been convincing to a post- or mid-tribulationist.

Chapter 5: What about Israel? by Michael Vlach

Vlach begins this chapter with a defense of how God can use nations as nations. It is puzzling why he felt the need to do this, considering that several of the people he cites to defend his points are certainly not dispensationalists (notably Christopher Wright). The issue is simply not whether or not God uses nations or whether or not nations will still exist in the new heavens and new earth, but whether or not they have an identity that is separated from the church, the redeemed community.

I also find it astounding that in his whole discussion of how Israel was to be the cause of blessing to the nations (including discussion of passages such as Genesis 12, Deut 30, Ezekiel 36, and others), he never examines Galatians 3, which is a pivotal text in this whole discussion.

Similarly, he discusses Romans 11 without interacting with the exegesis of Reformed theologians on that chapter, which is absolutely crucial to the case of covenant theology. Likewise, when he references Revelation 21-22, he doesn’t interact at all with the case that covenant theologians make about the unity of the people of God in the New Jerusalem. This chapter just toes the party line without engaging in any substantive discussion with the views of those who disagree.

Chapter 6: What about Revelation 20? by Michael Waymeyer

Of all the chapters in this book, I found this one to be the most cogently argued. This is not to say that I was persuaded by it, but I did really appreciate that Waymeyer seemed aware of most of the arguments of a- and post-millennialists regarding Revelation 20, and he did take the time to respond in some detail to the views of others. A- and post-millennialists would do well to actually respond to the arguments presented in this chapter, as they are not so easily brushed off as the shoddy argumentation presented in many of the other chapters.

Chapter 7: Does Calvinism Lead to Futuristic Premillennialism? by John MacArthur

Anyone who is familiar with MacArthur’s address given at a Shepherd’s conference entitled Why every self-respecting Calvinist should be a premillennialist some years ago will know where he goes in this chapter. This chapter is only slightly more articulate than that sermon (and the later 6-part series he gave on the same topic). He argues that while Calvin and other Reformed theologians used a sound hermeneutic for most doctrinal questions, they abandoned it in favor of an allegorical approach that they elsewhere condemned when it came to prophecy. This is a sad mischaracterization of the reality. To equate Calvin’s prophetic hermeneutic with allegory is simply not accurate. The allegory of some of the early church fathers in the Alexandrian school was fanciful and speculative. Covenant theologians want to interpret OT prophecies in light of how the NT interprets them, which is a far different thing than allegorical interpretation.

In dealing with election and the relation between Israel and the church, MacArthur fails to engage in any meaningful way with what covenant theologians say about the church as the true Israel. He deals with only Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16, neglecting to discuss Romans 2:28-29 (other than just citing it as backing up his point when it really seems to do the opposite), Philippians 3:3, Ephesians 2:12, Galatians 3 or 4, 1 Peter 2:9-10, amongst many others.

Chapter 8: Does the New Testament Reject Futuristic Premillennialism? by John MacArthur

MacArthur begins this chapter with a puzzling point: that 1st century Jews understood OT prophecies to indicate a future physical and geopolitical kingdom for Israel. I have no doubt that they did. But they also expected a very different kind of Messiah and so rejected him. Why we should then base our eschatological expectations on theirs doesn’t follow.

It is interesting as MacArthur examines various texts in the New Testament that he leaves out what may be the most crucial ones. E.g., in answering the question “did Jesus reject futuristic premillennialism?” he doesn’t address the Olivet discourse where Jesus addresses the Great Tribulation. Amazingly, in asking whether Peter accepted futuristic premillennialism, he glosses over the crucial text in Peter’s sermon of Acts 2 from which theologians argue that Jesus is king on David’s throne now. Similarly, regarding Paul, he doesn’t address how covenant theologians deal with Romans 11 amongst other passages. Regarding John, he addresses only Revelation 20 and fails to discuss the passages from John’s gospel that relate to the 2nd coming or the resurrection and judgment. In other words, MacArthur is just preaching to the choir rather than presenting substantive arguments that might persuade someone from another perspective.

Chapter 9: Did the Early Church Believe in a Literal Millennial Kingdom?

This chapter is better than some of the others in that it at least engages seriously with a number of early church fathers to defend premillennialism. It does present a fairly compelling case that many early church fathers accepted premillennialism. I found its case for why amillennialism developed to be slightly less compelling and more speculative, but overall, it is still a chapter that is worthy of consideration. I do find it curious that this argument from church history is given weight on this point, while on the topic of national Israel’s role in the future, church history is nearly completely ignored. The reality is that the whole system that this volume supports is radically against most of church history, including the early church, and so to appeal to church history on this point seems a bit odd. As far as it goes, though, this chapter is one of the better ones in the book.

Chapter 10: How Certain is Futuristic Premilllennialism?

Of all the chapters in this book, this one is perhaps the most painful to read. Notwithstanding my respect and admiration for John MacArthur in so many areas, this chapter is truly disappointing. Most egregious in the chapter is his charge of R.C. Sproul with date-setting because he sees Matthew 24:1-34 as having been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. To equate that with the date-setting of Hal Lindsey and others is at its best absurd and at its worst incredibly disingenuous.

The entire chapter simply ignores every argument that a- and post-millennialists have developed in favor of their positions. He also assumes what he needs to prove at nearly every point, particularly regarding the Olivet Discourse and the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.

Summary

Much of this book is just an effort to motivate those already convinced of dispensational premillennialism to keep fighting for it. With the exception of Waymeyer’s chapter on Revelation 20, the chapters dealing with the biblical data concerning the issues involved simply don’t deal with the arguments of other views. They offer very little that is new to the discussion, and they fail to provide convincing responses to the arguments that others provide. So while I can recommend this book for someone wanting to get a sense for what modern dispensational premillennialists believe, I cannot recommend it to those looking for substantive engagement with eschatological issues.

Note: I received a copy for review purposes from Moody Publishers.

Read More

Posted by on May 23, 2010 in Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Hermeneutics | 6 comments

MacArthur, Calvinism, and (Dispensational) Premillennialism: Part 4

In the first three posts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) I primarily discussed what was really the crux of MacArthur’s messages on Calvinism and premillennialism: his commitment to dispensational theology.  As I stated, the series would have been titled more appropriately if it had been “Why Every Calvinist Should be a Dispensational Premillennialist.”  In evaluating MacArthur’s insistence on dispensationalism, I’ve primarily looked at several distinctive dispensational elements: (1) The dichotomy between Israel and the church in terms of God’s plan, (2) the dispensational insistence on a “literal” hermeneutic, and (3) the actual implications of election for the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament.

There is much more that could be said about this topic, but much wiser people than I have written on it.  Here are some resources that have helped me in the past: Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God by Keith Mathison, Understanding Dispensationalists by Vern Poythress, and This World is not My Home by Michael Williams.

In this last post chronicling my thoughts on MacArthur’s series on Calvinism and (Dispensational) Premillennialism, I’ll look briefly at the question of eschatology (doctrine of the last things).  MacArthur spent most of his time talking about dispensational distinctives.  However, since his topic was eschatology, and since he did make many claims about the future, I’ll address two eschatological issues: (1) The chronology of MacArthur’s approach, and (2) a bizarre eschatological consequence of dispensationalism.

The Chronology of MacArthur’s Approach

Here is how MacArthur describes the events of the future:

Now then you think about eschatology, there’s a little sequence of events that are relatively simple for you to think about, and this is the way the Bible lays it out.  If we wanted to use technical theological terms we’d call it the ordo eschaton, that is, the order of last things, the ordo eschaton.  And it kind of goes like this.  In the end, everything is begun by the Rapture of the church, the collection of the church, the gathering of the church into the presence of the Lord.  That is followed by a period called the Tribulation.

So Rapture, Tribulation…Tribulation ends with the Second Coming of Christ, when he comes to earth bringing his church, those of us who have already been with Him, having been rapture before the Tribulation, we come back with Him to earth, He returns, He destroys the ungodly and sets up His Kingdom…

At the end of the Kingdom you have the Great White Throne Judgment, which is the final judgment of all the ungodly who are raised from the dead and brought before the Great White Throne, the tribunal of God, where the final sentence is rendered and they are sent forever into the Lake of Fire…That’s it.  Rapture-Tribulation-Second Coming-Kingdom-Final Judgment-New Heaven and New Earth…that’s the chronology, that’s the ordo eschaton.  And if you follow the book of Revelation, that’s exactly the way it’s laid out.  It is precisely how it flows.  You see the church on earth in chapters 2 and 3, which describes the present church age, immediately you come to chapter 4 and you see the church in heaven which is indicative of the fact that they were on earth, they’re now in heaven though it doesn’t describe the Rapture, it’s described in other places, it’s clear that that is what happened.

One could write many posts examining this approach to the future.  In the interests of brevity, I’ll content myself with only asking a few questions about this understanding of eschatology.

(1) Where in Scripture do we ever see a “rapture” disconnected from the Second Coming? The idea of the “rapture” comes from 1 Thess. 4:13-18, in which Paul says that “we will be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air.”  However, Paul does not mention a tribulation after this event, nor does he seem to indicate that there will be 1007 years of history after this being “caught up in the air.”  I could go on, but I’m happy simply to ask where the exegetical evidence is for asserting the existence of two separate comings of Christ.  Scripture never simply “lays it out” this way.  To suggest that because the church is described as in heaven in Revelation 4 indicates there was a rapture at the beginning of the chapter simply doesn’t follow, considering that in Chapter 12, the church is clearly back on earth again.  Revelation simply doesn’t follow a completely chronological sequence.  But if we understand its apocalyptic genre, this shouldn’t surprise us.

(2) Where in Scripture do we ever see the Second Coming disconnected from the final judgment? MacArthur places the kingdom 1000 years after the Second Coming of Jesus.  This is the heart of the premillennial view (both classic and dispensational).  [1. The 1000 year gap comes from his insistence that the 1000 years mentioned in Revelation 20 is entirely a literal number.  I don’t have time to examine that claim, but I only mention that he provides no evidence.  Revelation is clearly a highly symbolic book (beasts coming out of the water, bowls of wrath being poured out, etc), so to immediately dismiss any suggestion that 1000 could be a symbolic number is unconvincing.] This is, in my opinion, the most difficult aspect of premillennialism to accept.  Consider the following passages:

1 Corinthians 15:23-24: But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.  Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

There are several important things to notice here: (1) The end comes at Christ’s coming.  I find these verses difficult to fit into a premillennial scheme.  When Christ comes, the end comes.  At the end (at Christ’s second coming), he delivers the kingdom back to the Father.  The implication is that Christ reigns over his kingdom, defeating his enemies prior to his return.  (2) Death, the last enemy, is defeated at the end of Christ’s reign.  At this point, we must compare with what Paul says later in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55:

Behold! I tell you a mystery.  We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.  For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.  For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.  When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory? O death, where is your sting?’

These verses indicate that death will be defeated when the dead are raised (accompanied by a trumpet sound).  When the dead are raised, death is defeated.  When are the dead raised?  When do we “put on immortality”?  We put on immortality when Christ raises us from the dead at his coming: For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thessalonians 4:16).  This verse is the one cited to refer to the rapture.  But if we interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, we see several things: (a) Death is defeated at the end of Christ’s kingdom.  (b) Death is defeated when God raises his children from the dead to new life.  (c) God’s children are raised from the dead to new life when Jesus comes back.  When we put these ideas together, the conclusion seems to be that Christ returns at the end of his reign, at which point the dead in Christ are raised and death is finally defeated.  Accordingly, the Rapture and Second Coming are synonymous, and the final judgment takes place at the Second Coming, not 1000 years later, as premillennialism indicates.

A Disturbing Eschatological Consequence of Dispensationalism

While dispensational theology has many eschatological consequences, I here want to mention the one that I find truly disturbing.  Here it is: A dispensational approach to Scripture places sacrifices in a rebuilt temple in the millennial kingdom.  Consider what MacArthur says:

They [Jews of Jesus’ day] also believed that the temple would be rebuilt because that’s what Ezekiel says in Ezekiel 40-48, and temple worship would be at its apex.  The eschatology of the Jews at the time of our Lord is precisely the eschatology that I believe because it’s what the Bible teaches.  There were just interpreting the Old Testament in its normal sense.

I have several questions about this: (1) Shouldn’t we be concerned if our eschatological understanding is the same as that of the Jews of Jesus’ day? They missed the central message of the Old Testament.  They missed the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament.  They missed Christ.  Their eschatological understanding was fundamentally flawed.  So to ask, “what was the eschatology of the Jews of Jesus’ day?” as MacArthur repeatedly does in his series, seems fundamentally off the mark.

(2) Insisting that there will a rebuilt temple in a future millennial kingdom misses the fact that Christ is the fulfillment of Old Testament expectation, including the temple.  Jesus calls himself the temple (John 2:19-21).  The body of Christ is the temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16).  To return to a physical temple would be to return to the types and shadows of the Old Testament and away from the substance that is Christ (Colossians 2:17).  To return to a physical temple would be to, in effect, declare what Christ did on the cross insufficient.  Consider that the veil in the temple was torn, that the “wall of separation” (referring to the wall in the temple) was torn down through Christ’s death.  Accordingly, if my theological presuppositions (“literal” interpretation, distinction between Israel and the church in God’s plan) lead me to think that God will put a rebuilt, physical temple in his kingdom, then surely I ought to examine those pre-commitments.  Perhaps my hermeneutical model is lacking or in error.

(3)  Insisting that the temple will be rebuilt (because of Ezekiel 48) means that the sacrifices will be reinstituted.  This, ultimately, is the disturbing consequence of dispensationalism.  There are clearly sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel 48, so if one argues that Ezekiel 48 is fulfilled in a future, post-Second Coming kingdom, then the sacrifices must also be present in that kingdom.  Hebrews (see chapters 8-10 especially) clearly says that the Old Covenant is obsolete.  The types and shadows, the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, all of those aspects of the promise stage of God’s plan are gone because the reality has come. To revert to those is to say that Christ’s coming was unimportant. We don’t need a new temple, and we don’t need new sacrifices.  We need to trust (for now and forever) in Jesus, the true Temple and the true Sacrifice.  Any theology that takes us away from that ought to disturb us. [2. I am aware that some dispensationalists suggest that these sacrifices aren’t sacrifices of atonement, but rather memorial sacrifices, commemorating what Christ.  However, that claim is impossible to defend, for two reasons: (1) God gave us something to remember Christ’s death by: the Lord’s Supper.  (2) Ezekiel 48 clearly says that these are sacrifices of atonement.  One can’t just say they’re memorial sacrifices, particularly if one holds to their “literal” hermeneutic.]

Thus ends my series on MacArthur, Calvinism, and (Dispensational) Premillennialism.  As I stated in the first post, I have deep respect for John MacArthur, and I will continue to listen to his messages and read his writings, as I have profited deeply from them.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that dispensational premillennialism is a theological approach that has severe theological, biblical, and practical implications.  So despite my respect for MacArthur, I believe there is a real need for the church to leave behind this theological system, and hopefully, if nothing else, I have clarified in my own mind the issues involved in evaluating this approach.

—Footnotes—

Read More

Posted by on Apr 28, 2010 in Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Theology | 8 comments

MacArthur, Calvinism, and (Dispensational) Premillennialism: Part 3

Life has been busy, so it has taken me some time to finish Part Three (Part One, Part Two).  As I’ve mentioned in my first two posts, MacArthur is arguing for dispensational premillennialism.  What this means is that he believes in a future geo-political kingdom that is distinctly Jewish in character in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to Abraham, Jacob, David, and the Israelites.  While I have briefly criticized this before, I will now offer a few more thoughts that question this interpretation.  I won’t quote extensively in this post, both for space and because this question of Israel’s status covers the majority of MacArthur’s next few messages.  First I will briefly describe MacArthur’s view of Israel, and then I’ll move to both biblical and practical problems with this view.

MacArthur’s View of Israel

(1) The promises God made to Abraham and David in the Old Testament regarding the land, a kingdom, etc., will be fulfilled in a geo-political sense in a future millennial kingdom.  He believes that Israel has never had the fulfillment of these promises.

(2) Israel is currently under divine judgment for rejecting the Messiah.

(3) Ethnic Israel’s existence in the land of Palestine is proof of God’s continuing promises to them.

(4) The church is not in any sense the fulfillment of the promises to Israel, though she does get salvation through the new covenant, which is fulfilled in Jesus.

(5) Believing in election means that one should accept that God must give Israel the land of Palestine and a geo-political kingdom.

The Doctrine of Election and the Status of Israel

MacArthur’s repeated claim is that those who believe in God’s immutable election (speaking of soteriology) should accept that ethnic Israel has an enduring, special place in God’s plan because of promises made in the Old Testament.  This is really the heart of his argument.  I now hope to offer a biblical evaluation of this claim.

(1) MacArthur really proves too much by his comments.  He argues that the promises made to Abraham are not conditional, that is, that they will necessarily be fulfilled.  However, he also restricts those promises to ethnic Jews.  And if those promises aren’t conditional, and are restricted to ethnic Jews, then MacArthur has a problem: Why must Jews believe in Christ in order to receive the fulfillment of the promises?  He admits that the Jews are currently under the judgment of God and that they won’t fully receive the promises until they believe in Christ.  However, if the promises are unconditional, then why does it matter if ethnic Jews do or do not meet the conditions?  The logical conclusion of MacArthur’s position is, I believe, something akin to the craziness of John Hagee, who supports sending money to establish (unbelieving) Jews in the land of Palestine.  I’m sure that MacArthur doesn’t support this, given his commitment to the importance of the gospel.  However, I believe this is the logical conclusion of his views.  If what he says is true, then unbelieving Jews have a right to the land of Palestine, not only believing ones.  This has extreme practical implications that I will discuss later.

(2) MacArthur’s claims do not adequately grapple with how election relates to the promises of the Old Testament. He says that God must keep the promises of land, kingdom, and status to ethnic, physical Jews.  This is the basic dispensational distinctive.  However, a series of questions illustrate the faultiness of this approach.  If the promises are to Abraham’s ethnic descendants, then why shouldn’t Ishmael and his descendants (which some argue are Arabs) receive the promises? The answer is, of course, that Ishmael wasn’t the promised son; that was Isaac.  What about Esau?  Don’t the descendants of Esau have rights to the land, kingdom, and so on? No, because God chose Jacob, not Esau.  So the promise doesn’t go to all of Abraham’s ethnic descendants?  No, only to the ones chosen by God.  So the promises to Abraham are given only to those chosen by God? Yes.  So who are those who are chosen by God?  It is at this point, I believe that the dispensational argument breaks down.  Consider the following Scriptures:

“Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.” (Galatians 3:7)

“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29)

“Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise.” (Galatians 4:28)

“That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” (Romans 4:16)

Who are the sons of Abraham, the heirs of the promises to him?  Those who are of faith.  Paul was writing to Jews and Gentiles in these verses.  Accordingly, is it ethnic Jews alone who are heirs of the promises to Abraham?  Not according to Paul.  The promises to Abraham were not ultimately to be fulfilled to his ethnic descendants, but his spiritual descendants.  Even more specifically, though, the promises are fulfilled in Christ: “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.  It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.”  Christ inherits all the promises, and Christ fulfills the promises.  Accordingly, the only way to inherit the promises is to be in Christ.  And as Galatians 3:28 tells us, in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.  Thus those who receive the promises to Abraham are not ethnic Jews alone.  It is all those who are united to Christ by faith.  The physical people were intended to point to the spiritual people, made up of Jews and Gentiles.

The Church is Spiritual Israel

MacArthur makes bold claims regarding the identity of Israel: “Not one reference anywhere in Scripture and there are over two thousand, referring to Israel means anything other than Israel.”  He means that the term “Israel” only refers to ethnic, physical Jews, and never to the church.  At this point, I’ll simply list a few Scriptures with commentary, as I believe the Scriptures speak for themselves at this point.

Philippians 3:3: “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.”

In the Old Testament, which people were identified by the mark of circumcision?  The Jews were.  And repeatedly, God tells the Israelites to “circumcise their hearts” (e.g., Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4).  So the distinguishing mark of physical Israel pointed to an inward spiritual reality.  Those who are spiritually changed are the true Jews (Romans 2:28-29), because being a Jew and being circumcised are ultimately spiritual realities.  And Philippians 3:3 clearly states that those who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus are the circumcision.  To restrict this statement in Philippians to ethnic Jews alone who are also spiritual Jews would be to miss the point.  Paul is saying that the true worshipers of God (John 4) are the circumcision—that is, they are spiritual Israel.

1 Peter 2:4-10: “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  For it stands in Scripture: ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.’ So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,’ and ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.’  They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.  But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.  Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”

While I’m aware that some dispensationalists apply this passage only to believing Jews, I find such an interpretation extremely difficult to defend.  1 Peter was written to the church, not to believing Jews alone.  And the church is a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a people for God’s own possession.  Those who were not a people are now the people of God.  Paul applies that same expression from Hosea to the church in Romans 9.

I mentioned Ephesians 2 in my first post, so I won’t repeat it here.  But the basic point is that it says that those who were outside of the commonwealth of Israel were brought near through the blood of Christ.  Brought near to what?  To Christ, to God, to hope, to the commonwealth of Israel.

I’ve already quoted this above, but Galatians 3 clearly says that those who are of the faith are the sons of Abraham.  What was the claim to fame of physical Jews in Jesus’ day?  That they were sons of Abraham (John 8).  And yet Paul says that Gentiles who believe are the sons of Abraham (spiritually).  Simple logic tells us then that Gentiles who believe are part of spiritual Israel.

While more can be said from the Scriptures about this topic, I’ll quote only one more passage.

Revelation 21:9-14 “Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, ‘Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.’  And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.  It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed—on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.  And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

So the Bride of the Lamb is the New Jerusalem (which Galatians 4 says is the mother of us all) coming down out of heaven.  What names are put on the gates and foundations?  The names of the twelve tribes and the twelve Apostles.  Accordingly, the bride of the Lamb (which Ephesians 5 identifies as the church) is made up of the continuous people of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament.  So if the church is part of the heavenly Jerusalem (the capital of Israel/Palestine), then it stands to reason that the church is spiritual Israel.  The collective witness of the Scriptures is clear on this point.

Practical Implication

If, as MacArthur says, the presence of ethnic Jews in the land of Palestine is an apologetic for God’s faithfulness, and if ethnic Jews have a right to that land because of God’s promises, then there is at least one clear practical implication:  Christians ought to continue to support the presence of ethnic Jews in the land of Palestine whether the modern state of Israel acts justly or unjustly.  While I have no desire to get into the political question of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, I humbly suggest that such a perspective will not promote peace in the Middle East in the slightest.  Jews and Arabs need to be called to not see the land as ultimate, to not see it as the fulfillment of God’s promises, but rather be called to repent and trust in Christ as the fulfillment of all the Messianic expectation of the Old Testament.  That is the path to peace, not asserting on the basis of God’s promises a commitment to the land of Palestine.

Read More

Posted by on Apr 13, 2010 in Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Hermeneutics | 2 comments

MacArthur, Calvinism, and (Dispensational) Premillennialism: Part 2

In Part One of this series, I identified MacArthur’s central thesis in his 6-Part Series entitled, “Why Every Calvinist Should be a Premillennialist.” I proceeded to illustrate that his messages really argue for dispensational premillennialism and to discuss why this is important.  I now turn to three other topics that are emphasized in MacArthur’s first message in the series: (1) MacArthur’s claims about hermeneutics (Interpretation), (2) his description of other millennial views, (3) and his discussion of the Reformed tradition.  I originally intended to deal with his claims about the current status of Israel as well, but I’ve decided to delay that till the next post for the sake of brevity.

MacArthur’s Claims about Hermeneutics (Interpretation)

Consider the following quotations regarding hermeneutics:

“We can take prophetic Scripture at face value.  We can interpret it the way we interpret any other passage of Scripture with the same use of the normal, natural means of interpreting language.  And we should.  And it will yield for us as clear an understanding of the future as the Lord wants us to have.  It’s not nearly as difficult as some people make it if you just take Scripture at face value.” (1)

“Whether you are a pessimistic amillennialist, or an optimistic amillennialist, that’s a post-millennialist, you don’t know what to do with prophetic truth because if you interpret prophetic truth in the same normal natural way you interpret all the rest of the passages of Scripture, you’re going to end up a pre-millennialist.  It’s inevitable.  And so you have to change the rules of interpretation.  And once you say the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, then we have no idea what it means.  Certainly you have no idea what it means, neither does anybody else.” (4)

“Normal, natural, literal interpretation is the only way to stop abuse of Scripture.  As soon as you abandon that, then it’s fair game for anybody’s craziness.  If we’re going to change the rules then, may I suggest this…and this is what I told the pastors. If we’re going to change the rules, then we better have a Word from God. There should be a footnote in the chapter saying, “Please note, here comes a prophetic text, change the rules.”  We really need a divine mandate because I think God cares that we get it right.  Would you agree?  I think He cares that we get it right, that’s why He wrote it and I think He understand that His glory is at stake and our hope and comfort is at stake and the evidence of God’s massive moving in history is at stake with regard to the future.  He wants us to get it right, that’s why He put it in the Scripture and the Scripture is replete with it. So if we’re going to change the rules of interpretation to inject in to Scripture a preconceived idea or to avoid what is obvious, we better be sure that we have a word from God.” (5-6) (Emphasis added)

“You get the interpretation of Scripture right when you’re faithful to valid rules of interpretation.  So you interpret it right and that will allow you to understand the meaning of the Covenants and the future of Israel, and God’s integrity is at stake.” (8) (Emphasis added)

Let me try to summarize what MacArthur is saying about biblical interpretation in this first message (he repeats these thoughts throughout the 6-part series):

(1) There is one all-important hermeneutical rule: taking the words at “face-value”—that is, using a normal, natural, and literal method of interpretation. (I don’t mean to suggest that MacArthur acknowledges no other rules, but he has certainly given this one prominence.)

(2) This hermeneutic applies to Old Testament prophecy just as it does to OT and NT narrative and NT didactic portions.

(3) Dispensational premillennialism honors this hermeneutic, while all others (particularly amillennialists and postmillennialists) ignore it because of preconceptions that prevent them from following it.

I should note there that MacArthur is simply presenting the “hermeneutical distinctive” of dispensationalism.  If you read works such as Dispensationalism Today by Charles Ryrie, you will see quite similar comments about interpretation.

Evaluating MacArthur’s Literal Hermeneutic

(1) The hermeneutic that MacArthur wants to be normative—normal and natural means of interpreting—is vague. Whose standard of normal and natural is normative?  What seems normal and natural to me might seem outlandish to someone from another culture.  When Roman Catholics read, “This is my body and this is my blood,” they assume that a normal, natural way of interpreting it leads to transubstantiation.  Obviously, MacArthur would reject this understanding of the text.  But on what grounds would he do so?  I would suggest that the hermeneutical guideline he has given is so vague that it ceases to be beneficial.

(2) MacArthur’s view of the “valid principles of interpretation” needs to be explained in more depth.  When he says, “And so you have to change the rules of interpretation.  And once you say the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, then we have no idea what it means.”  Other than the principle that we need to read with a normal and natural hermeneutic, he hasn’t really explained what the “rules of interpretation” are.  And furthermore, when he says that we need a “word from God” to tell us that the rules of interpretation have changed, he seems to be suggesting that rules for interpretation as such are given explicitly in Scripture.  This is not the case.  We must look at Scripture (particularly Scripture’s own use of Scripture) and use the knowledge that God has given us in general revelation (including knowledge of the languages) to help us develop valid principles of interpretation.

(3) While I am quite sure that MacArthur recognizes the importance of genre in the Bible, his description of hermeneutical method leaves no place for the relationship between different genres and different methods of interpretation.  One should not interpret the apocalyptic book of Revelation with multi-headed beasts coming out of the water in the same way that one would interpret the historical books.  This is a vitally important rule of interpretation.

(4) MacArthur fails to acknowledge an essential principle of interpretation that is laid down in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Paragraph IX:

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

I quote this to show that we haven’t “changed rules of interpretation.”  The principle that Scripture must interpret Scripture has been around for a very long time.  So when we are puzzled by one passage of Scripture (perhaps some of the things in Revelation), we ought to go to other Scriptures to see how they might illumine the passage in question.  This doesn’t mean that we are saying that Scripture “doesn’t mean what it says.”  Rather, it means we are trying to understand how Scripture interprets itself, so as to learn from that example.  This leads to another principle of interpretation that is really at the heart of the issue.

(5) Building off the foundation of (4), interpreters have to wrestle with how the New Testament relates to the Old Testament.  Books have been written that deal with this subject extensively, but I wish to say simply that this is one of the fundamental differences between dispensational thought and Reformed, covenantal thought.  Drawing from how Peter (see his sermon in Acts 2), Paul (see his use of the Old Testament in Romans 10 and Galatians 3-4), and James (see his speech at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15) interpret the Old Testament, we would assert that one can only properly understand the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:27, “And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them from the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”).

The reality is Christ.  The types and shadows of the Old Testament pointed to fulfillment in Christ, the Lamb of God.  Ultimately, the shadows pointed to the reality of the new heavens and the new earth, the complete restoration which Christ already accomplished through the cross and  the resurrection, but which still await the final completion when Christ returns.  Accordingly, when we read Old Testament prophecy and we interpret it as having meaning beyond the physical, geo-political sense (land, throne, etc), we aren’t just saying “Scripture doesn’t mean what it says.”  Rather, we are saying that those prophecies can only be interpreted in light of Christ, and therefore through the lens of the New Testament.  I’ll deal with this point in more specifics later in the series.

MacArthur’s Description of Other Millennial Views

MacArthur directly describes and discusses both amillennialism and postmillennialism in his first message.  However, I would argue that there are two problems with his descriptions.

(1) He fails to accurately describe them in many ways.  In particular, he fails to acknowledge what current amillennial authors are saying.  Consider these examples:

“Post-millennialism and amillennialism is [sic] really the same thing.  I like to call amillennialism negative, and postmillennialism positive.  That’s just two ways to look at the same thing.  It’s two ways to view human history.  One says it’s not the Kingdom.  The other says it is the Kingdom.  One says moving toward the coming of Christ there will be no Kingdom.  The other says there will be a kingdom.  But in both cases it will be the flow of history under the influence of the church.  So they’re really looking at the same thing.  One calls it a kingdom and says it will expand and expand and expand, that’s the positive spin.  The other looks at it as a spiritual kingdom also but says it will decline and decline and decline and decline until Jesus finally comes.”

This is not a total mischaracterization.  However, it is not well nuanced either.  Amillennialists do not say that there is no kingdom.  Rather, they interpret it as being fulfilled ultimately in the new heavens and new earth, the fulfillment whose inauguration came with Christ’s first advent.  Postmillennialists don’t necessarily say that everything in the world will just get better and better.  They don’t say that sin will cease to be a factor and then Christ will return.  What they do say is that the gospel will continue to change peoples’ lives in all parts of the world, and that by the time Christ comes back, the gospel will be victorious.  But sin will still be there, and thus the world will not be perfect.  Postmillennialists differ on how all of this will happen (possibly arising from differences on theonomy, reconstructionism, etc).

“Another way to see this would be to ask this question…what other category of theology, what other category of theology except atheism starts with the alpha privative and labels itself as believing in something that doesn’t exist?  To say you’re an amillennialist is only to tell me what you don’t believe. And then you have to go to all of the passages of Scripture that talk about the Kingdom and tell me why you don’t believe they mean what they say.  It’s a strange approach.”

“Amillennialism” may be a bit of a misnomer, because they do believe in a millennium—it is simply that their interpretation of that millennium is not a geo-political one.  But it’s the name that has been applied to the view for a long time, and so it remains.  But to say that amillennialists want to simply label themselves “as believing in something that doesn’t exist” is very inaccurate.

(2) He uses arguments based on fear, rather than solid logic and evidence.  MacArthur argues that accepting amillennial views is the same hermeneutical problem at play in the debate over 6-day, 24-hour creationism.  So he says,

“Why then if we are so committed to protecting the text of the beginning in its literal nature are we so fast to give up the texts of the end and their literal nature?  It makes no sense.  Where is the divine mandate to do that?  What passage is it in? Show it to me.”

I’ve already suggested that matters of genre are of more importance than MacArthur admits, but forgetting that point for a moment, this is nothing but an argument from free.  I suppose that Catholics could say the same about our interpretation of “this is my body and blood.”  But simply because we believe we are faithfully interpreting Scripture by not expecting a geo-political fulfillment of the Old Testament does not necessarily mean that we should also reject the historicity of the Genesis account.[1. I don’t deny that there are Reformed, covenantal theologians who do deny the 6-day, 24-hour understanding of Genesis.  But I am saying that an amillennial does not necessarily lead to such an approach.  Other factors are involved in this.  Of note also is the fact that C.I. Scofield, in his Scofield Reference Bible (the most popular dispensational study Bible for many years), advocated a day-age theory regarding Genesis 1.  This issue is one that must be dealt with on other grounds—not using it as a means of scaring people what amillennialism might lead to.]

(3) He misrepresents how those with other perspectives view the importance of eschatology.

“…those who love the doctrine of sovereign election most…are in varying degrees of disinterest in applying their skills to the end of the story and rather content to be in happy if not playful disagreement in regard to the vast biblical data on eschatology as if the end doesn’t matter much…period.  Or another way to say it would be this, how many of you have attended an amillennial prophecy conference? There isn’t such a thing.  If you don’t know what you believe about the future, you can’t preach on it.” (4)

First, I do not believe it is accurate to say that Reformed theologians are in various degrees of disinterest about the topic.  Kim Riddlebarger (see his RiddleBlog, and A Case for Amillennialism) has written quite extensively from an amillennial perspective.  Keith Mathison has written extensively from a postmillennial perspective (see Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, and his massive From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology).  Those are only two examples.  Many other Reformed pastors and professors have written on the topic.  We’re not obsessed with it, but Reformed theologians do write and preach on it (see for example, Greg Bahnsen’s audio series on Revelation).

Secondly, Reformed churches have had conferences on eschatology (though we would probably want to deemphasize conferences in general and focus on the ministry of the local church).  They probably weren’t big like some of the dispensational-pre-tribulation-rapture-we’re-telling-you-how-what’s-in-the-news-is-from-the-Bible conferences.  But they’ve held discussions on them and preached on them from the pulpit.

Thirdly, it’s not that postmillennialists and premillennialists don’t know what they believe.  Keith Mathison’s 800-page beast on eschatology ought to be enough to put that to rest.  It’s that we disagree strongly with dispensational approaches to the topic.  We also believe it’s much simpler and clearer than what dispensational premillennialism suggests.

Description of the Reformed Tradition

Central to MacArthur’s thesis is the idea that Calvinism necessitates premillennialism.  So while he openly praises the Reformed tradition for their commitment to Scripture, for their rigorous study of Scripture, for their commitment to God’s sovereign grace, he says that those positive elements really only fit with (dispensational) premillennialism.  I note this only to say that if the majority of the people who held to these strong principles in history were not premillennial, then perhaps rather than just dismissing them, we ought to consider that perhaps their views on eschatology do fit well with their other views.

MacArthur also says that amillennialism fits better with process theology (God is becoming who he is) and openness theology (God doesn’t know the future) than with Reformed thought.  However, given that Calvin, Knox, Owen, Hodge, and many other strongly Reformed theologians did not hold to MacArthur’s eschatological views, is it possible that one ought to think more carefully about why they held to what they did.  The history of theology is strongly against MacArthur on this point.  That doesn’t mean by default that MacArthur is wrong.  But it at the very least probably means one should be more careful before making such strong claims.

——–Footnotes———–

Read More

Posted by on Apr 11, 2010 in Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Hermeneutics, Soteriology | 14 comments

MacArthur, Calvinism, and (Dispensational) Premillennialism: Part 1

John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church, one of the most influential evangelical pastors, gave an address at the Shepherd’s Conference in 2007 entitled “Why every self-respecting Calvinist should be a Premillennialist.”  The topic was a surprise to many of the attendees, as was MacArthur’s approach to the topic.  He also gave a series of six sermons on Sunday evenings drawn from his message at the Shepherd’s Conference, explaining more fully why he thinks that every Calvinist should be a premillennialist.  The intent of this series of posts is to evaluate MacArthur’s case for premillennialism.  I will do so in four parts: Parts One and Two will deal with MacArthur’s first message, Part Three with his second through fourth messages, and Part Four with his fifth and sixth messages.  Before I get into it, let me offer a couple of introductory comments and disclaimers:

(1) I have deep respect for John MacArthur.  I have profited from many of his books, sermons, and conference messages.  I believe God has used him to drive many in the church towards a deep understanding of the doctrines of grace.  However, as you will see, I have deep disagreements with some of the theology that he promotes.

(2) I am selecting this series of messages for a couple of reasons: I believe that the issue of dispensationalism (yes, that is largely what is discussed in his messages) is vitally important today, both theologically and practically (more on the practical reasons later).  I also believe that MacArthur’s messages provide a common example of what is taught in dispensational churches (at least the ones I have had experience with). Accordingly, this is a good opportunity to hear it all from a dispensational perspective and then interact directly with that view.

(3) I will not be able to exhaustively deal with everything MacArthur says.  In each part of this series of three posts, my basic approach will be this: I will summarize his basic argument and will then respond to his message under several main headings with quotes and discussion.

I would encourage you to not read just my posts if possible.  Here’s the link to the series on John MacArthur’s website.  And I’ve also put all the PDF transcripts in a zip file for easy download here.  If possible, listen to the messages so that you can get the full context for what MacArthur is saying.  However, since it does take a time commitment to do that, I will be quoting liberally from the messages so as to let MacArthur speak for himself as much as possible.

MacArthur’s Basic Thesis

As I’ve listened and read through MacArthur’s series, I believe I’ve gained a good grasp of his basic thesis: If you are a Calvinist, you believe in God’s sovereign election.  If you believe in God’s sovereign election, then you must believe that God will fulfill his sovereign promises to ethnic Israel by giving them a geo-political kingdom in the future (after the Rapture and Tribulation), because this is the univocal witness of the Scriptures when using a natural, literal hermeneutic.  That is the basis thesis of MacArthur’s six messages.  I’ll now move on to several topics (points of contention, really) related to this central thesis.

MacArthur really should have entitled the series this: “Why Every Calvinist should be a Dispensational Premillennialist.”

For instance, consider the following quotations (all of the quotes in this post come from Part 1 of MacArthur’s series, and the page numbers refer to the page numbers on the PDF printout from his website):

“There are two great elect people in the Bible…Israel and the church.” (7)

“Now why am I making a case for this? Because when you understand God’s purpose for Israel, you now have the foundation for all eschatology…all eschatology.  You get your eschatology right when you get Israel right.” (7)

“There are over two thousand references to Israel in Scripture.  Not one of them means anything but Israel…There are 73 references in the New Testament, each of them refers to Israel.” (7)

“So here’s how to get the foundation for a good sound eschatology.  Get election right.  Get Israel right.  You got it.  Cause what that means is God does know the future, God has set the future and the future involves not only the glory of His church but the fulfillment of His elect people Israel with regard to everything that He promised that nation.” (8)

“Do you understand the massive apologetic power of the existence of Israel as an ethnic people in their own land? Staggering.  How do you explain that? As one prominent amillenialist said when asked, ‘What is the biblical significance of the existence of the Jews in their land?’ And he said, ‘It has no significance at all.’ Really? It is the single most inexplicable story in human history that this small group of beleaguered people attacked and assaulted by everybody around them for centuries still exists as a pure ethnic race.  Now if you want to get the future right, you’ve got to get Israel right and you’ve got to get God’s sovereign electing purpose right.” (12)

Hopefully the quotes are sufficient to make the point.  It is clear: MacArthur is arguing, at the end of the day, for dispensational premillennialism.  According to him, even historic, covenant premillennialism gets the story—particularly the future of the story—wrong.

Why MacArthur’s Insistence on Dispensational Premillennialism is Significant

(1) While I personally am not premillennial (in the historic sense), I recognize it as an acceptable position for Christians (even Presbyterians) to hold.  And, what is more, the Reformed tradition has typically allowed latitude in this area.  That is not to say that Reformed people don’t hold strong views one way or the other.  But if you look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 33, you’ll see that pre-, a-, and post-millennial views are permitted.  And all three are represented in my denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America) today, though premillennialists are certainly in the minority.  For MacArthur, to allow for such diversity in eschatological (theology of the last things/future) matters is to say that God is confused:

“I think it matters.  I think it matters to God.  It matters to me.  It matters to me to understand what God has said about the end.  It’s the whole point of everything else.  It’s the whole point of the beginning and the middle.  The end is as divinely designed as the beginning.  And God has given us massive amounts of revelation in the Scripture about the future.  It has to matter to us.  In fact, some say nearly one fourth of Scripture is prophetic.  God filled the Bible with prophecy and much of it looking to the end.  Did God do this but somehow mumble?  Did he do it and somehow muddle it so hopelessly that the high ground for Bible students and the high ground for theologians is to recognize the muddle and abandon the perspicuity or the clarity of Scripture on that subject?  Is that what God wanted us to do?  To look at it and say, ‘I can’t figure this out, let’s forget it?’  There are whole denominations that are instructed not to teach on the end times.  You would assume that they’re confused because the Bible is confusing.  And if the Bible is confusing, then God Himself is confused.” (4)

I’ll offer a couple of points in response to this: First, by allowing for different viewpoints, no one is saying that Scripture is confusing and that therefore God is confused.  What we are saying is that we, finite and sinful humans, do not always understand things perfectly.  And we are saying that one’s view on the millennium of Revelation 20 shouldn’t be the boundary of ecclesiastical leadership.  Secondly, by allowing for different views, we are not saying that we should just “forget it.”  Perhaps there are some groups that do so.  But if that was the attitude of all but proponents of (dispensational) premillennialists, then I doubt there would be books like A Case for Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism: an Eschatology of Hope.  It’s not that we don’t care.  It’s that we disagree.

Accordingly, if MacArthur’s message were simply about premillennialism, then I would not have as many problems with his series.  I would disagree, since I am not a premillennialist, but I would recognize that this is a view held by a minority even in my own ecclesiastical fellowship.

(2)  By emphasizing dispensational premillennialism, MacArthur ignores the testimony of the church through the ages.  Dispensationalism represents a departure from what the church has taught through the ages and is, despite protests to the contrary, something arising out of the 19th century through the work of J. Nelson Darby and others.  MacArthur knows of this point, but when he responds to it, he fails to adequately pinpoint the actual focus of his series:

“And by the way, dispensationalists…people say, ‘Well, that whole pre-millennial view, that came out of C.I. Scofield, that came out of J.N. Darby, that came out of that whole dispensational system.’  No it didn’t.” (10)

No one—to my knowledge at least—has ever argued that premillennialism came out of the 19th century.  There were early church fathers known as chiliasts—premillennialists.  But the point is that dispensational premillennialism is contrary to what the church taught for centuries, contrary even to what other premillennialists taught.  MacArthur’s messages argue pointedly and repeatedly for dispensational premillennialism, and so the point against his views being a 19th century phenomenon are well-founded.

Why I Believe MacAthur’s Dispensationalism is not Biblical

I have established that MacArthur is really arguing, not merely for premillennialism, but for dispensational premillennialism.  And it is because of this that I am writing this series of posts.  Now, of course, I must explain why I believe this to be a problem.

Dispensationalism, by identifying two separate peoples of God, confuses the central storyline of the Bible.  As I quoted above, MacArthur says, “There are two great elect people in the Bible…Israel and the church” (7).  That is indeed the fundamental claim of dispensationalism.  However, I argue that this misunderstands the structure of the biblical narrative.  Here’s why:

The biblical narrative has often been discussed in terms of the following structure: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration.  God created the world in perfection and had perfect fellowship with man.  Adam, however, disobeyed God, and so all men “lost communion with God,  are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever” (Westminster Shorter Catechism #19).  God did not leave man in this state.  Rather, as Genesis 3:15 indicates, he initiated what Reformed theologians have called the “covenant of grace”—a plan to save man from sin through the Seed of the woman.  The Old Testament tells the story of the initial stages of this plan to save God’s people.  The plan takes varying twists and turns: from the radical destruction of the flood to the promises to Abraham and David.

The point though, is that God’s dealings with all people through history have been part of one plan, not two.  When God made promises to Abraham, they were still part of God’s plan of redemption through the Messiah.  When God made promises to David, they were still part of God’s plan of redemption.  Ephesians 2:12 refers to the “covenants of promise.”  These various covenants—with Noah, Abraham, David, and ultimately the new covenant—are all part of one central promise: God’s promise to conquer sin and death through the Seed of the woman who is revealed to be the very Son of God.  When Jesus came, he showed us that the reality is much brighter than the shadows.  The land, the ethnic and ceremonial boundaries for God’s “set-apart” people, and the sacrifices all pointed to God’s fulfillment of the plan in Christ.  When Christ came, those boundaries and ceremonies ceased, because King Jesus came.  And the way he came was fundamentally contrary to how the Jews of Jesus’ day expected him to come.  They missed that the types and shadows of the Old Testament were intended to point to the following realities: (1) Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10).  (2) The kingdom of God is no longer limited to the ethnic people of Israel.  Rather, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, God’s reign expands to all the nations.  The church does not per se replace Israel.  Rather, the church is the fulfillment of Israel.  Consider Ephesians 2:11-13:

“Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”

Gentiles were previously separated from Christ, outside of Israel, outside of the covenants of promise.  But now, in Christ, those who were far off have been brought near.  Brought near to what?  To Christ, inside of Israel, members of the covenants of promise.  Accordingly, the central claim of dispensationalism—that the Jews have their promises, and that the church has its own because they are two distinct peoples of God—is misguided.  Rather, the point is that the Old Testament people of Israel stands in continuity with the church, not in exact identification, but as type to antitype, as shadow to reality, as promise to fulfillment.  We are, as Paul says in Galatians 4:28, children of the promise, like Isaac.  We are children of the same promise that Isaac was.  Accordingly, the people of God are continuous from Genesis to Revelation. Much more can be said on this point, but I’ll leave it for now.

(3)  The land of God’s people is no longer limited to the small piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Consider, for example, the following passage:

Hebrews 11:13-16: “These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.  If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.  But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one.  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.”

The men and women of faith in the Old Testament did not receive what was promised.  By they saw the fulfillment in the future, and this made them acknowledge that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.  Why?  Because they desired a better country, that is, a heavenly one.  They desired the city that God prepared for them.  The ultimate reality that the promises to them pointed to was not a small portion of land in the Middle East.  Rather,  it was ultimately a new heavens and a new earth.  What about this current earth?  See Romans 4:13, “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.”  The promise to Abraham was not ultimately about the land of Palestine.  Rather, it was a promise that God, through Christ, would redeem the whole world.  And those who are united to Christ by faith (see Galatians 3) get to join with Christ in receiving the fulfillment of those promises.

That’s enough to deal with for my first post on this series.  Let me sum up what I’ve discussed in this post, and then I will explain where I’ll be going in the next post.

John MacArthur’s appeal that every Calvinist should be a premillennialist is really an appeal that every Calvinist should be a dispensational premillennialist.  This first post explained why that is a significant point and began a brief explanation of why dispensationalism is objectionable.  My next post—still covering MacArthur’s first message in the series—will move on to several other important issues: I will evaluate his claims (1) about (dispensational) hermeneutics, (2) about other millennial views, (3) about the Reformed tradition, and (4) about the current status of the people of Israel.

Read More
%d bloggers like this: