Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

The video has now gone viral, providing embarrassment for the charismatic movement and fodder for those who deny that the prophetic gifts are for today.

A self-proclaimed prophet from Scotland disrupted a Sunday morning service on August 16th as Pastor MacArthur stood behind the pulpit, rebuking him for teaching cessationism and for being divisive, announcing that he was a prophet sent by God.

Pastor MacArthur listened quietly before security removed the man, who continued to call for repentance as he was escorted out the door.

Pastor MacArthur then responded like a completely composed, totally unruffled, senior statesman, using humor and assuring the congregants that the security team would handle the intruder with gentleness.

He explained that this uninvited guest claimed that it is heresy to say that spiritual gifts like tongues and prophecy have ceased and he added that, according to 1 Corinthians 14, the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets and if this man were a real prophet, he wouldn't have behaved that way.

Of course, if you read about what the prophets did in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament (see Acts 21:10-11), a disruptive act like this would be quite minor.

But I do believe in principles of order and honor, and Paul did instruct Timothy never to rebuke an older man (or, elder) but rather to appeal to him (see 1 Timothy 5:1). So, however you view this incident, it did make Charismatics look bad.

As Pastor MacArthur continued to speak, he said "it's a sad situation" and "of all the things you could get upset about" — before he was disrupted by a baby crying, leading to more humor and laughter, after which he called on the congregation to stand with him as he read the Word of God before preaching.

Obviously, I have a real problem with the way things happened, bringing reproach to the gifts of the Spirit in the presence of the entire congregation, not to mention the many thousands who have viewed the video since it was posted.

And I've seen some ridiculous online comments posted to other videos like this one: "I heard online that John MacArthur receive[d] the medical RFID chip/mark of the beast and the Holy Spirit left him."

But there's something else I have a problem with, and I've raised my voice about it for two years now, also reaching out to Pastor MacArthur publicly and privately to discuss or even debate the relevant issues.

I'm speaking about the extreme rhetoric used by my elder brother in his attacks on my colleagues in the Charismatic Movement, including some of the most saintly, Jesus-loving, Word-based, spiritually-minded people I know anywhere in the world.

I'm talking about charges he made loudly and publicly like this: "The Charismatic Movement is largely the reason the church is in the mess that it's in today. In virtually every area where church life is unbiblical, you can attribute it to the Charismatic Movement."

He claimied we have "stolen the Holy Spirit and created a golden calf and they are dancing around the golden calf as if it is the Holy Spirit. . . The charismatic version of the Holy Spirit is that golden calf . . . around which they dance with their dishonoring exercises."

Pastor MacArthur went as far as saying that we attributed "to the Holy Spirit even the work of Satan."

In short, he called the Charismatic Movement "a farce and a scam" that "has not changed into something good," claiming that it represents "the explosive growth of a false church, as dangerous as any cult or heresy that has ever assaulted Christianity." Accordingly, he calls for a "collective war" against these alleged "pervasive abuses on the Spirit of God."

He stated that "Satan's false teachers, marching to the beat of their own illicit desires, gladly propagate his errors. They are spiritual swindlers, con men, crooks, and charlatans."

And, he continued, "By inventing a Holy Spirit of idolatrous imaginations, the modern Charismatic Movement offers strange fire that has done incalculable harm to the body of Christ. Claiming to focus on the third member of the Trinity, it has in fact profaned His name and denigrated His true work." (I document every quote, in context, in Authentic Fire.)

Although I do not know the man from Scotland who disrupted Pastor MacArthur's service, I suspect that what upset him was not so much the doctrine of cessationism but rather the aggressive and divisive way in which Pastor MacArthur has taught it, maligning many of God's choice servants and mocking those who worship the Lord in ways that are unfamiliar to him.

And so, once more, I appeal to my esteemed colleague, who has done so much good for the cause of Christ for so many decades and who has stood like a rock in the midst of spiritual compromise: Dear brother, you were gentle and gracious after that incident in your church. Would to God that you would display that same grace in your public differences with those of us in the Charismatic Movement — more than a half a billion strong — and would to God you would display that same grace and agree to sit down privately and discuss the relevant issues as men of God.

Make no mistake, Paul's recommendation to Timothy was likely suggested by their co-worker, the physician Luke, and was most certainly only for treating his asthenia, not ethanol as a recreational drug.

Yeah, it's not like Jesus would rebuke his mother Mary, nor would He make something to get people drunk!!!

Once again providing evidence that God wants us to enjoy life to the fullest. Paul just advised MODERATION!

John 2: On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4 “Woman,( not Mom and not Goddess?) why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.

7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”

They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

“Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

The above is absolutely the worst kind of Scripture-wresting that is not fit for any kind of serious scholar, and it does not even hint of moderation. Following is a rendering of the sense of the text that remains entirely within the hermeneutic of faithful attendance upon the literal, historical, grammatical, cultural, and Christ-honoring elements of Biblical interpretation.

DID JESUS MAKE ALCOHOLIC WINE AT CANA ?

Jn 2:1-11 AV with Greek phrases from the Textus Receptus

(Note that it is well proven that when oinos/wine is used, it may refer either to unfermented juice, or alcoholic beverage, or both. The sense of what "wine" means is always context-dependent.)

Also, please note that the purpose of this passage is to give Jesus glory from the first of his public ministry until the last. It is not a passage given over to glorifying His birth mother, in which she plays a close, but minor, role; nor to implicitly authorizing the use of alcoholic beverage as a usual concomitant of Christian rites.

=========

1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

This event happened the third day after arriving in Galilee, directly after His baptism by John in the South. Nathanael was from Cana.

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

The use of "called" might be better translated hereas "invited, '' as well as His disciples.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

This is has been taken--contextually and grammatically wrongly--to mean that at the wedding banquet, they had consumed all the wine so far provided, and have "run out of wine." That is not what the verse says.

The phrase υστερησαντος οινου (from hustereo, verb, aorist tense, active voice, participle mode); it (the wedding) was lacking wine

. Jesus' mother turned to face him and said,"οινον ουκ εχουσιν" (from the verb ἔχω = to have, present tense, active voice, indicative mode, 3rd person plural). "They continually have no wine (all the time)" or better yet, "They are not having wine" meaning "at this banquet." What this is is not sying is "They ran out of wine/"

She did not say, "They have no more wine." "No more" is not anywhere in this little scene described. What is there is that they have no wine, none at all.

4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Or, perhaps, "What has this to do with thee and me? We're not here to provide the drinks, are we?" But actually, He and the disciples are invited guests, and it is usual to bring a present for the bride and groom. What can they do to show graciousness?

And His mother had been there from some time, as one may infer from the grammar. If he is going to give a wedding present, she may be hinting both that the celebrating families are too poor to provide wine, so they are not having it at the wedding. Or that they are very aware of the admonition of Habakkuk 2:15, and have no intention to provide and occasion of drunkenness, therefore are not serving alcoholic beverages.

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

Mary is only telling them that if he takes initiative to do something that needs their help, be ready to do as He orders.

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

Note that there are six vessels, and a firkin is about 10 gallons. Estimate that each vessel has 25 firkins (6 vessels x 25 ga each, or about 150 gal). That would be about 600 quarts, enough for the whole wedding feast for everyone?

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

The waterpots here are ritual vessels, not hust ordinary jugs. They are handcarved from stone, not just clay, so they are very expensive, and kept holy and passed from generation to generation. Since wine has leaven in it, fermented wine with yeast would never be put in these vessels. That would defile them. I reckon that Jesus simply would not put filthy stuff in them. Why is it not just as sensible for Him to make sweet, tasty wine like Welch's does now, eh?

8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

Made as if freshly pressed, but totally without the process that normally would cause filth to be in the man-created juice; however, on the other hand, the omnipotent Jesus was not restricted to making the usual variety of alcoholic wine with the usual filth, was He? That would be the case only when one wants to impute the worst, most depraved intent to this Holy Teacher in His exemplary works.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

Thinking that the bridegroom had finally broken out the festival wine according to the usual custom of the culture, the caterer/master of ceremonies called out for the bridegroom (with his voice) with the intent to compliment him publicly on his prudent strategy, of saving the wine so as to be served later in the feast, and using pure water at first from the waterpots --

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

"You have not had wine from the start of the feast, as everyone typically begins the feast. Instead of giving me wine to serve from the beginning, you wisely have saved the very best-tasting wine and not served any of it until now! That's a pretty wise, prudent, and frugal strategy to extend the use of the little you have!" (Note that this verse does not say that anybody in this feast had drunk any wine at all, so far. The master of ceremonies merely describes the usual practice of how a feast is commonly scheduled. For a translator to impose his base-minded assumptions on the text, saying that anyone in this feast was drinking wine, is simply a misinterpretation and not an exegetical requirement. It would be reading into the text in eisegesis something that is simply not there.)

11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Building a doctrine on assuming Jesus was serving gallons and gallons of alcoholic beverage to revelers that were already three sheets to the wind is a very unwise way to claim any kind of theological repute for the interpreter. Even then, it would be very questionable to think that The God who hates the influence of even a little recreationally taken ethanol on the spiritual life of a true believer, would agree with His Son being just a purveyor of a mind-bending central nervous system depressant to the solemnity and holiness of the occasion..

The meek and righteous scholar will not do so, but place the greatest emphasis on the sanctified nature of the first of many affirming miracles that He, the great Teacher and Master performed in His earthly ministry.

A presumptuous interpretation presenting the reader with Jesus enabling a drunken and riotous marriage party is demeaning and degrading to his role as a chaste, humble, and holy Savior bringing decency to a depraved society.

And a holy man of God will not preach or exemplify in his own life of placing a benediction on the use of wine as a Scripturally-approved necessity.

===========

So, no, I do not and nd never will in this life come to believe that Jesus made alcoholic beverage for the Cana wedding. But thanks for offering your provocative, but unwarranted, presumptuous, and gratuitous opinion on the meaning of this passage, so that it can be contested out in the open forum.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

We are Theists not deists. God manifests Himself in our lives. He is active and is constantly building our faith as He conforms us to the image of His Son.