I would definately agree with that.
Some of you may find this to be an item of interest, too:
A Response to John MacArthur on “Dispensationalism and God’s Plan for Israel” by Steve Lehrer
I have profited from John Macarthur’s teaching and so have most believers I know. He has been a strong and faithful witness for Christ and a great teacher of His Word.
But he is not above friendly criticism.
Recently a friend e-mailed me a transcript of a question and answer session with John Macarthur at Grace Community Church. One of the questions dealt with Dispensationalism. In Macarthur’s answer he laid down a challenge that those who believe the promises to national Israel in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the Church need to give biblical proof.[1] The following is an excerpt from the transcript of the Question and Answer session:
Question: What is Dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?
Answer: I will try to condense this because I don’t want to get too bogged down. Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control. I think it started out with a right understanding. The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of Dispensationalism was:
”That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God’s promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews).”
Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that’s all I want to take of it, that’s where I am on that), Dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.
I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren’t in Scripture. For example, traditionally, Dispensationalism says, “The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don’t need to worry about it.” When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is.
So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a “leaky dispensationalist” and I suppose I am. So let me take you down to where I believe Dispensationalism (I don’t use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of Dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart—it is this:
“That there is a real future for Israel,” and that has nothing to do with some kind of extra biblical system. That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture. The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised. And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel—there is a new covenant. Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive—right? God’s going to raise them back up; God’s going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit. And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David’s line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem. You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.
It is at this critical point that we hope dialogue can begin between Dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians. Macarthur says that he has not developed a “grid placed over Scripture” to come to his conclusions about what Scripture means by what it says. His reasoning is that God has said in the Old Testament that there would be a future for national Israel and therefore, that is what will happen. This sounds reasonable until we take a closer look.
We believe Macarthur actually has a presupposition or theological “grid” that he imposes on Scripture. He assumes that what God said in the Old Testament is left without further explanation and interpretation. But God’s revelation does not end with the book of Malachi! God has given us the New Testament to help interpret and clarify what was written in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Macarthur is correct that it is wrong to play fast and loose with Scripture and that we must interpret Scripture without being fanciful or arbitrary. But if God tells us in the New Testament that some promise in the Old Testament is not to be taken literally, then we must listen. So if national Israel is promised a future in Palestine in the Old Testament, we should take that promise to mean exactly what it says, UNLESS God in the New Testament tells us that it actually means something different. We think that it is only reasonable to allow God to tell us what He means by what He wrote in the Old Testament. Macarthur continues:
So my Dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament—it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it’s on them.
The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an “Amillenialists,” or a “Covenant Theologian” that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel—an Amillenialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.
My answer to them is simply this, “You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me!” Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says “Israel” He means the “Church”? Where does it say that? That’s where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel.
The great thing about John Macarthur is not only the strength of his convictions but the fact that he is direct and to the point. He never beats around the bush! He is absolutely right that the burden of proof clearly rests on those who believe that the promises to physical Israel are fulfilled in the church, which is made up of Jews and Gentiles.
But notice the assumption that creeps into his challenge. “You show me IN THAT VERSE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me!”
His challenge limits both our ability and God’s ability to answer.
But if we view the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament we will find that there are many decisive answers to Macarthur’s challenge.
Amos 9; There is a prophecy in Amos 9:11-12 that is quoted in Acts 15:14-19 which will help us to understand how God, through the Apostles, interprets Old Testament prophecies concerning a future for national Israel.
Our first step in interpreting this prophecy in Amos is to determine its context within the Old Testament. Amos is prophesying against the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and dressing them down for their idolatry and social injustices. The prophecy focuses on the coming judgment God is about to bring on Israel with His chosen instrument, the Assyrians, in 722 B.C. At the end of a series of visions concerning God’s judgment on Israel, we read that God has plans to restore the nation of Israel:
In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name,” declares the Lord, who will do these things (Amos 9:11-12).
“In that day” refers to a time after the promised judgment on Israel which God poured out on them in 722 B.C. According to Amos, this “day” or period of time after the judgment of Israel, will be a time of restoration of the nation. “David’s fallen tent” refers to the divided kingdom.
When David ruled over Israel it was a united kingdom and it is considered the golden age of Israel in Scripture. But at the time Amos was prophesying, the kingdom was divided and Israel was at a moral and political low point. God, through Amos, was saying that in a day in the future God will unify the nation of Israel and make it like it was in the days of David and Solomon.
This is to happen for a reason: national Israel is to be unified in the future so that “they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations (Gentiles) that bear my name.” Now if we look up Edom in a standard Bible dictionary we find that “The term Edom…denotes either the name of Esau, given in memory of the red pottage for which he exchanged his birthright…, or the Edomites collectively…, or the land occupied by Esau’s descendants, formerly the land of Seir… It stretched from the Wadi Zered to the Gulf of Aqabah for c. 160 km, and extended to both sides of Arabah or wilderness of Edom.”[2] Therefore, when Israel is promised that they will possess the remnant of Edom, it is a reference to political and military supremacy over their national enemies.
To sum up, God, through Amos, prophesied that there will be a time in the future after the exile of Israel when the nation of Israel will have military supremacy over its enemies, political re-unification, and of course the expansion of its physical borders to its original size under David’s leadership.
The Acts Connection: We find Amos 9:11-12 quoted in the New Testament by Luke in the book of Acts Chapter 15. God, of course, inspired Luke to interpret the passage from Amos in the book of Acts. Therefore, as we look at Acts 15 our job is to determine how Luke interprets Amos 9 in the light of the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.
The Context: In Acts 15 the Jerusalem council is meeting to discuss the question of whether or not Gentiles can be included in the people of God. In other words, can non-Jews be saved?
They were also addressing the related question concerning the law of Moses and what if any of that Law believers, especially Gentile believers, need to obey? Luke, in the book of Acts, records James addressing the first of these questions showing that the prophets legitimize Peter’s understanding of God’s grace reaching non-Jews by quoting the book of Amos:
Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: ‘”After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things that have been known for ages. It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:14-20)
James interprets Amos to say that God does save Gentiles and they too should be included in the people of God.
We also know from James’ interpretation that the phrase “after these things” in Amos 9 refers to this period in which God is saving Gentiles, that is from Pentecost to the second coming.
James understood that the period of time Amos prophesied about was actually taking place in the 1st century A.D.! He believed that the re-unification and restoration of Israel was happening.
But it clearly wasn’t a national re-unification because it included non-Israelites. In addition, Israel the nation was securely under the thumb of Rome at the time!
There is something else that is important in God’s use of Amos 9 in Acts 15. Notice that the reference to Edom seems to have been removed and the action resulting from the restoration of Israel has changed from possession of enemies to God’s election from among all peoples of the world.
The restoration of national Israel in Amos 9 is interpreted by God in Acts 15 to refer to the gathering of God’s elect, both Jews and Gentiles, to be saved and brought together into the church.
And this was not left to some time in the future, but it was happening in the first century and it is happening now according the book of Acts.
Jeremiah 31: The prophecy concerning the new covenant that is first mentioned in Jeremiah 31 and then quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10 is one of the most striking evidences that the promises to national Israel are fulfilled in the church.
In its old covenant context, Jeremiah 31:31-34 seems to be a prophecy about God’s future blessings for ethnic Israel and Judah sometime after Judah is defeated by the Babylonians:
“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “When I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
If we had only Jeremiah to guide us we would have to conclude that the new covenant is all about God’s plan for ethnic Israel.
But God in the New Testament Scriptures has given us an interpretation of these verses that tell us that they are fulfilled not in the nation of Israel but in the church today!
This new covenant is none other than the work of Christ on the cross for His people from every tribe, nation, and tongue.
Jeremiah 31 is quoted in Hebrews 10 with just such an interpretation.
The book of Hebrews is addressed to believers who were once Jewish and because of severe persecution are being tempted to turn away from the sufficiency of Christ back to the old covenant with its sacrifices and ceremonies.
So the author of the book of Hebrews argues for the superiority of Christ and His saving work over all that the old covenant had to offer. In Hebrews 10:11 we find the author comparing the sacrifices offered under the old covenant to the one sacrifice of Christ:
“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”
The author is clearly talking about the sufficiency of the one sacrifice of Christ to make sinners acceptable to God. Unlike the sacrifices of the old covenant that had to be repeated endlessly and even then only served to remind people of their sin, the one sacrifice of Christ actually accomplished atonement for sins.
Nothing is more central to biblical Christianity than this work of Christ on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God.
But in the very next verses the author quotes from Jeremiah 31 as referring not to some future for ethnic Israel but to the sufficiency of the one sacrifice of Christ to make believers acceptable to God!
“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts and I will write them on their minds. Then he adds: Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.”
The author of the book of Hebrews has taken a prophecy, which in its old covenant context seems to clearly refer to a promise that God will bless ethnic Israel in the future, and has interpreted that passage to be talking about the cross.
Although in its original context the new covenant seems only to apply to Israel and Judah, the application by God in the book of Hebrews is to all those who trust in Christ. In Jeremiah the promise of a new covenant seems to be for a people in the distant future, while in the Book of Hebrews the new covenant is the work of Christ and it applies to the church now.
John Macarthur challenged us: “You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me! Where does it say that?”
It is our opinion that this meets John Macarthur’s challenge for proof that Scripture actually does say that the promises to national Israel are fulfilled in the church.
But in order to arrive at this conclusion we must read Scripture properly, that is we must read the promises given in the Old Testament Scriptures through the lens of the New Testament Scriptures.
Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that’s all I want to take of it, that’s where I am on that), Dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.
====
I agree with the above.
John Macarthur challenged us: “You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church—show me! Where does it say that?”
Actually, John is simply ignorant of what the gospel IS that Jesus brought, it seems. Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God saying "Repent and Believe." Those who think the message of the gospel was only about salvation, have really cut the heart out of the gospel. Salvation was not news to the Jews, they already believed that; they were the covenant people of God. They were looking forward to the coming kingdom.
And, here comes Jesus in Mark 1:14-15 telling them that the kingdom is here. The problem was that they were expecting the restoration of a physical throne of David and a military reign. Nevertheless, as Jesus tells Pilate, if His kingdom were of this world then His servants would fight. Nobody understood just what a Revolution in kind the kingdom would be. Few do even today.
Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore thie kingdom to Israel?"
And today's Disp crowd is just as ignorant as the Apostles and the Jews of Jesus' day were concerning just exactly what is the nature of the gospel and the kingdom! Those looking for a future kingdom should quit wasting time trying to figure out what is coming and start enjoying the kingdom that God has already given us!
Jesus, I believe only mentions the church 3 times, He mentions the kingdom of God more than 100. Almost all the parables are about the kingdom and even the Sermon on the Mount is a declaration of the kingdom of heaven: How blessed are the poor in spirit [those who know their need for God] for theirs IS the kingdom of heaven. I am right where I should be (Heb 12:22)! Now, let us deliver the kingdom message to the world as a witness (Matt 24:14) so this age will come to an end and we can begin to enjoy the riches of God's glory in the ages to come.
Finally, someone who has it RIGHT!!! Thanks for a very clear exposition.