New MacArthur Series

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
John MacArthur has announced a new commentary series: the "MacArthur Old Testament Commentary." The first volume, Zechariah, has just been released.

He has preached comparatively little from the Old Testament during his years of ministry (being a loyal, if leaky, dispensationalist), yet he says every Old Testament book will be covered. My thought: there are 39 books, some of them quite long, and he's nearly 84 (this June). He says he's getting help from the faculties at both Master's University and Master's Seminary. So, I figure it'll actually be a university and seminary project with MacArthur serving as sort of a general editor, because ain't no way he's preaching through the entire Old Testament to do this. (He made one appearance at the recently-concluded Shepherd's Conference and has not yet returned to the pulpit on Sundays, as he's still recovering from his recent surgery to clean out his arteries.)

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out - and how long it will take.
 
John MacArthur has announced a new commentary series: the "MacArthur Old Testament Commentary." The first volume, Zechariah, has just been released.

Well, Logos lists 293 Results for books by John MacArthur. The total is 377 if books translated into other languages are included.
He's been publishing since around 1975, so that's about six books per year.

More realistically, the Wikipedia article – John MacArthur bibliography shows 24 titles before 1990. Therefore, subtracting the 24 from 293 leaves 269 titles in the last 33 years, or closer to nine books per year. Hmmm.
 
"This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss a recent address by John MacArthur delivered at the 2023 Shepherd’s Conference. In his address, “Hope for the Remnant,” based on Zechariah 14, MacArthur says that this passage is the “amillennialist’s worst nightmare.” In this episode, we make several preliminary observations and comments."

 
Starting a series with Zechariah... Would it not be better (for anyone) to start on the clearer books to then help understand the more difficult books?
 
Starting a series with Zechariah... Would it not be better (for anyone) to start on the clearer books to then help understand the more difficult books?
"This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss a recent address by John MacArthur delivered at the 2023 Shepherd’s Conference. In his address, “Hope for the Remnant,” based on Zechariah 14, MacArthur says that this passage is the “amillennialist’s worst nightmare.” In this episode, we make several preliminary observations and comments."

I see what you are hinting at! An axe to grind?
 
I see what you are hinting at! An axe to grind?
Nope. I have better things to do.
But anyway like I said, I do not think anyone should start a large OT series on Zechariah as a general principle. Whoever it is. Just my view.
And the link I provided is just some context and reactions just for information.
 
Last edited:
Enough with the “axe to grind” garbage. If you promote a guy who has been hostile to basic tenets of Reformed theology on a Reformed forum, expect pushback.
 
It appears my previous comment requires clarification -

Following the thread's development, I was questioning whether MacArthur was publishing this commentary on Zechariah first in this new OT series as a push to follow up on his preaching against amillennialism, in which he has made a bold claim that Zechariah 14 plainly makes the argument against amillennialism. Hence my question whether this new commentary on Zechariah was possibly part of MacArthur's "axe to grind" against amillennialism, which the Cambridge dictionary defines as "to have a strong personal opinion about something that you want people to accept and that is the reason why you do something".
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, maybe MacArthur just had a commentary on Zechariah most prepared for publication ahead of any other book in the OT.
I won't speculate any further.
 
Alexander, I did misunderstand you and apologize. I thought you were attacking Polanus for his fair comment. Thank you for clarifying.
 
Hard pass from me.

Unnecessary at best. Dispensationalists are not really good OT commentators and I think we see that in his long (and successful) preaching career. When he finished preaching the NT several years ago, he basically said he couldn't imagine what to do next. I thought: "How about the OT?"
 
Insiders have already testified that MacArthur doesnt write his own books. Others (Phil Johnson?) rework his sermons and write for him. He isnt sitting around writing 6 books a year himself.

Slapping his name on an OT commentary series when he didnt do the work is pure marketing and leads people to believe he did. Apply Scripture to that approach and you will see why I call that group out repeatedly.

This ghost writing garbage in evangelicalism needs to end. Seems fraudulent to me (not just Mac, anyone who does it).
 
The reason the volume on Zechariah was published first is that MacArthur has stated that he has preached completely through two books of the Old Testament - Daniel and Zechariah. So, Zechariah came out first because the sermon material was already there - it just needed to be transcribed in written form and edited together for the book. Since Daniel is the other book he has preached through, I suppose that will be the second volume of the commentary to be released. As for the other volumes, as I said in the OP, this will probably be largely a university/seminary faculty project, with MacArthur as a general editor or overseer of the project.

This project is going to take a few years to be done, doubtless. I can't imagine MacArthur, almost 84, still being around to see it completed (although his father lived to be 91).
 
I have no problem with his name on material that is essentially his (i.e. reworked sermons) - he should get credit for his work, and others should get credit for theirs.

At any rate, unfortunately I think the OT series will probably much like the study Bible - lots of "Millenial Kingdom this" and "Millenial Kingdom that" further confusing and dividing God's people.
 
Insiders have already testified that MacArthur doesnt write his own books. Others (Phil Johnson?) rework his sermons and write for him. He isnt sitting around writing 6 books a year himself.

Slapping his name on an OT commentary series when he didnt do the work is pure marketing and leads people to believe he did. Apply Scripture to that approach and you will see why I call that group out repeatedly.

This ghost writing garbage in evangelicalism needs to end. Seems fraudulent to me (not just Mac, anyone who does it).
Call me an oddity, but I love John MacArthur. With that disclosure aside, ghostwriting seems sinful to me. You and I might "be in the know" about such things, but when the average person goes to get their MacArthur commentary on Habakkuk, they assume that he alone did the work.

If MacArthur wants to paste his name on a "Master's Seminary Commentary" that's another story.
 
Call me an oddity, but I love John MacArthur. With that disclosure aside, ghostwriting seems sinful to me. You and I might "be in the know" about such things, but when the average person goes to get their MacArthur commentary on Habakkuk, they assume that he alone did the work.

If MacArthur wants to paste his name on a "Master's Seminary Commentary" that's another story.
His MacArthur Pastor Library series has a list of contributors per the articles they wrote. Seminary professors mostly.
 
Just so I am being both fair and grateful to God, I benefitted from MacArthur early on in my Christian life - especially his doctrine of the Word, the gospel, and stressing the importance of the church. No doubt God has used him for good so I give him credit for every good thing he has ever done to the glory of God. However, it is all the other stuff that has completely ruined him for me. Its sad because it didn't have to be like that but I have learned some very important spiritual lessons about ministry by watching it.

And I was literally 6 rows back on a Sunday morning service when I heard him confidently declare that the church would fail in its mission just like man had in every other dispensation. That was a massive red flag for me as it didn't match the Bible I was reading.

Coincidentally, I was asked twice in the last couple weeks what I thought of MacArthur from two different people in my church and whether or not I recommended him in regards to a Bible study and a commentary. After thinking hard, I had to say no with the caveat that one would get some good stuff out of him but unfortunately, most are not able to spot the bad. The Hebrews commentary was a fairly easy "no" since I have it and am familiar with what he does with Jeremiah 31.
 
Insiders have already testified that MacArthur doesnt write his own books. Others (Phil Johnson?) rework his sermons and write for him. He isnt sitting around writing 6 books a year himself.

Slapping his name on an OT commentary series when he didnt do the work is pure marketing and leads people to believe he did. Apply Scripture to that approach and you will see why I call that group out repeatedly.

This ghost writing garbage in evangelicalism needs to end. Seems fraudulent to me (not just Mac, anyone who does it).
Do you have proof of this ghostwriting? If you do, it would be good to present it. The charge you are making is pretty serious.
 
Hard pass from me.

Unnecessary at best. Dispensationalists are not really good OT commentators and I think we see that in his long (and successful) preaching career. When he finished preaching the NT several years ago, he basically said he couldn't imagine what to do next. I thought: "How about the OT?"
Not promoting their Arminianism, or churches; but Calvary Chapels whole mantra is going verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book through the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, usually in like 5 year, or 300-600 hr. runs. And I believe almost all of their 1,700 churches or so follow this simple model of biblical exposition. So while MacArthur may have had a hard time preaching the Old, not all Dispensationalists do.

And this has always puzzled me about those who identify as Biblical Expositors, why in fact they do not exposit the entire word, but many times, instead, choose particular books. It seems with this model, a local body could go years, decades, or indefinitely without hearing the entire Bible preached. Especially when it comes to redoing books without having first covered those not done yet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top