By Sam Waldron on the new Illumination blog (from the Midwest Center for Theological Studies):Brethren,
Recently I answered an email from a brother asking my opinion of Dr. John MacArthur’s Dispensationalism. Of course, we all respect and admire Dr. MacArthur and thank God for his ministry. He also represents a more moderate version of Dispensationalism. This is not intended, then, to “bash” a man we all respect, but to respond to a defense of Dispensationalism likely to command a hearing. Here is the brother’s question and my response. Any comments or additions? Dr. MacArthur’s original comments are linked.
Hi Dr. Waldron, …. I have always been amillenial in my eschatology. But, as you will agree with me, it is not to say that all is easy to understand in this topic.I have a question for you. I need some light. I love much the preaching/teaching ministry of Dr. John MacArthur. He is a man of God, no question about that. Of course, he is a dispensationalist, though not as most are. He called himself a “leaky dispensationalist”. To be frank, I do not really understand all what is meant in that expression; anyway.My question is the following. He (MacArthur) answered a question one day concerning why he was not able to be amillenialist. Here is a question-answer session as taken from his website and tell me what you think about his argument of the nonsense of being amillenialism because it would mean that the promises for Israel were for the Church whereas the curses for Israel were for the nation. As you will see, I underlined some key expressions for the purpose at hand:
Dear …. Thank you for writing. I cannot, however, give a thorough rebuttal of Dr. MacArthur’s several assertions in the paragraphs you cite. Dr. MacArthur is a “leaky Dispensationalist.” Indeed he is, because he allows the Church to leak into the gospels and especially the Sermon the Mount and refuses to draw strict demarcations between those parts of the Bible intended for the Jews and those intended for the church. I praise God for these leaks. They make him a much safer guide in the Scriptures. They do not, however, make for a very consistent Dispensationalist. Your fundamental concern seems to be the apparent inconsistency of saying that the church is Israel, but only allowing the church to participate in Israel’s blessing but not in Israel’s cursing. I think the answer is rather straightforward.
The church is not simply Israel. It is the new Israel under the new covenant. In the Bible the cursing for Israel comes before the final blessing. I think even Dr. MacArthur would agree with that. Old Israel is cursed before New Israel is blessed. The point is that the church is the New Israel under the New Covenant. Where is there anything about cursing in the New Covenant? There is not. It is simply and totally about irresistible blessing. Let me give you several other miscellaneous assertions that occur to me in relation to MacArthur’s statements.
First, the question is not simply about a blessed future for ethnic Israel. Reformed and covenant theologians have believed that there is such a future without being Dispensationalists. Read John Murray on Romans 11. I do not personally hold this position on Romans 11, but it cannot be denied that many non-Dispensationalists have held it.
Second, the question is not about literal interpretation. The church is literally Jewish because it consists of those in union with a Jewish Messiah who is the heir of all the promises made to Israel. The church is literally Jewish because it consists those built on the foundation of an exclusively Jewish apostolate. The church is literally Jewish because it always contains a remnant of elect Jews (Romans 11).
Third, the question is what you mean by literal interpretation. MacArthur seems to assume a literal view in the sense of always literal or literal wherever possible. The fact is that such a hermeneutic is indefensible. With God anything is possible! Any passage might be literal. Furthermore, there are clearly figurative passages in the Bible (parts of the Psalms, Daniel, and Revelation) which to interpret literally is to misinterpret them. The proper method of interpretation is one in which we determine the literary genre of a passage and interpret in accord with its literary genre. The question about the Old Testament is how the NT authoritatively understands it. The fact is that every reference to the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 in the New Testament understands it as referring to the church. Look and see! Thanks for asking.
The Lord Reigns,
Dr. Sam Waldron
Click here to read: John MacArthur’s Dispensationalism
For the original transcript of this interview, you can look take a look at this site:
No comments:
Post a Comment