MacArthur on Covenant Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.
ccravens

ccravens

Puritan Board Freshman
I've gotten a lot of good information from John MacArthur over the years. Just finished his new systematic theology. While reading through his Romans 9-16 book, I ran across the following:

"Among those who most strongly insist that God is through with the nation of Israel are those whose theology is commonly referred to as covenant theology. It is ironic that, because of a distorted view of Israel, covenant theology cannot escape the implication that God is not faithful in fully honoring His covenants."

So, not being well versed in covenant theology, I was wondering the following:

*is this a faithful/accurate description of what most supporters of covenant theology believe? Do they believe that God is "through with the nation of Israel?

*I have no idea what he is referring to in his second sentence. Help would be appreciated.

Definitely not trying to troll or flame. If it comes across that way, chalk it up to my ignorance on the subject, but my willingness to learn.
 
MacArthur:

“The Bible calls God “The God of Israel” over 200 times— the God of Israel. There are over 2000 references to Israel in Scripture. Not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9: 6 and Galatians 6: 16, which are the only two passages that Amillennialists go to, to try to convince us that these passages cancel out the other 2000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers, “the Israel of God.” Israel always means Israel; it never means anything but Israel. Seventy-three New Testament uses of Israel always mean Israel.”
Click to expand...

He'll then say that if you hold to the sovereign election of the individual, you must also hold to the sovereign election of national Israel (and be a dispensationalist). So, he would charge Covenant Theology with having God abandon Israel, and break his promise.
 
It's the dispensational "take" on the other side, that being covenant theology. It is the result of not seeing ONE people of God throughout the entire Bible, but two; and two essential foci for Scripture.

If you slam the wedge between "Israel" and "the Church," and insist on it, and press this distinction, and say that only national-Israelites can call God "the God of Israel" and correctly mean for it to describe the relation between God and themselves; if this is your hermeneutical starting point, then CT is going to sound to your ears like it's denying God's covenant faithfulness.

CT answers JMA's charge: If God promises he'll give you a million dollars next time he sees you; and the next time he sees you, he gives you a billion dollars; you're not entitled to hold out for that "additional" million. because otherwise he didn't "fulfill" the letter of his promise. Dispensationalism is holding out for Israelite inheritance of some real-estate in the Levant; when the whole world has already been given to the Sole Heir of the Promises, namely Jesus, Yea and Amen.

In addition, dispensationalism regularly discounts various aspects of stated or implied conditions to what it often presents as "unconditional" promises. In every generation, God disinherited a percentage (large or small) of Israel for faithlessness. As of the crucifixion and rejection of Christ, he disinherited the whole lot--all except for One, namely Jesus, the one true Israelite. This is the message of Pentecost. All of you have been cut off... nevertheless, you may be recovered and regrafted in, by repentance and faith in Jesus, the Head.

The separate *nation* of Israel has served its redemptive purpose, bringing Messiah into the world. Since he is the ONE focus of the Bible (not one focus on him, and one focus on Israel), there's nothing to the claim that there's still some matters God has to settle with any national body. In any case, as Isaac prefigured the reality, there's just One who is the sole Son and Heir of everything the nation was promised.

There is literally nothing leftover whatever for anyone outside of the complete and total inheritance that has already been handed over to Christ. He owes nothing to anyone. Everyone else is disinherited and gets nothing--but he gives liberally out of his grace.

There aren't any national-specific, corporate blessings for an narrowly ethno-religious body called Israel, but this does not mean there are no more ethno-religious Israelites/Jews to call to faith. We pray for a great revival to sweep a host of people of that background into the church, the everlasting body of saints drawn from "many nations" (who were promised Abraham as their father, Gen.17:5).

JMA can't conceive of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic/Israelite promises as already having taken place just fine in typical fashion, or is fully realized already in Christ, or will finally be revealed in the new heavens and earth. Somehow, there is a generation that has a right to be unsatisfied with their inheritance being in Christ alone, and there's still some "preview" of the final state that is "due" to be shown on earth.

This overlooks the bride of Isaac, Rebekah, who is a type of Israel in the future (Exodus), and both of them of types of the Bride of Christ. Rebekah, the elect lady, is promised the God of Abraham if she will go back and be the sole son and heir's bride. She will become partaker of all this man's inheritance. And yet, Isaac does not possess so much as a foots-breadth of this promised land. That is owned by Canaanite squatters.

Canaanites have it now, in this life. But death will take it away from them forever. Meanwhile, Isaac does not have it now, but he and his bride will have it later, and forever. So, Rebekah is shepherded to a union with the son, in order to be part of the promises and have this God as hers. She shall be satisfied in having the son and heir, which is better than a deed to some land. For all he has, and all he WILL have is hers.

The Promised Land is a type of heaven. It is not a thing all about itself. In typical form, it was already gained by the nation of Israel. And in the end, the sole Son and Heir has also come into possession of his property, now expanded to fill the universe, Mt.28:18. There's no backtracking now to settle for a little bit of eastern Mediterranean geography.
 
ccravens said:
I've gotten a lot of good information from John MacArthur over the years. Just finished his new systematic theology. While reading through his Romans 9-16 book, I ran across the following:

"Among those who most strongly insist that God is through with the nation of Israel are those whose theology is commonly referred to as covenant theology. It is ironic that, because of a distorted view of Israel, covenant theology cannot escape the implication that God is not faithful in fully honoring His covenants."

So, not being well versed in covenant theology, I was wondering the following:

*is this a faithful/accurate description of what most supporters of covenant theology believe? Do they believe that God is "through with the nation of Israel?

*I have no idea what he is referring to in his second sentence. Help would be appreciated.

Definitely not trying to troll or flame. If it comes across that way, chalk it up to my ignorance on the subject, but my willingness to learn.
Click to expand...

Chris, as a fellow Baptist who started this journey nearly 20 years ago, do not feel intimated by Covenant Theology. Like anything else, CT has its nuances, but as a systematic theology, it views God's faithfulness to one people throughout the whole scope of human history. Bruce provided a detailed and helpful response to your question.
 
Thanks so much Bruce. Going over your post again, slowly.

Looks like I need to study some good literature on the subject. Something that explains the differences between dispensational and convenantal theology. While faithfully/accurately representing both.

Any suggestions?
 
ccravens said:
Thanks so much Bruce. Going over your post again, slowly.

Looks like I need to study some good literature on the subject. Something that explains the differences between dispensational and convenantal theology. While faithfully/accurately representing both.

Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
The ST of MacArthur would reflect traditional Dispensational Theology, would also want to read works by Darrel Bock for Progressive wing of the Dispensational group.
 
ccravens said:
I've gotten a lot of good information from John MacArthur over the years. Just finished his new systematic theology. While reading through his Romans 9-16 book, I ran across the following:

"Among those who most strongly insist that God is through with the nation of Israel are those whose theology is commonly referred to as covenant theology. It is ironic that, because of a distorted view of Israel, covenant theology cannot escape the implication that God is not faithful in fully honoring His covenants."

So, not being well versed in covenant theology, I was wondering the following:

*is this a faithful/accurate description of what most supporters of covenant theology believe? Do they believe that God is "through with the nation of Israel?

*I have no idea what he is referring to in his second sentence. Help would be appreciated.

Definitely not trying to troll or flame. If it comes across that way, chalk it up to my ignorance on the subject, but my willingness to learn.
Click to expand...
The nuances are found even among CT, as some would hold to a hope for national Israel in Covenant premil position, as at the time of the the Second coming of Christ.
 
Any general textbooks on the subject of dispensational vs. covenantal theology, which also points out the differences in each camp (traditional & progressive wings of DT)?

Similar to Faith Has It's Reasons by Boa and Bowman for apologetics, with a set of chapters each on classical, evidential, pre-suppositional, and fideistic apologetics.
 
JTB.SDG said:
As far as I can tell, this was indeed the MAJORITY position.
PS, Perg--you may be interested to know that this used to be the topic of missions' conferences back in the day.
Click to expand...
I would love to hear more about that, interesting. I tend to be optimistic and so I have come to embrace that God may yet bless the ethnic Jews and not discard them completely but do a great work near the End.
 
Pergamum said:
Just an aside: Plenty of the Puritans also believed that God was not through with ethnic Israel. See Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope, a provocative read: https://www.amazon.com/Puritan-Hope...d=1522563342&sr=8-2&keywords=the+puritan+hope
Click to expand...
I love this book. But at the very start of the book Murray distances this view from any kind of dispensationalism. It is important to keep this distinction. If God is not through with ethnic Israel, it is not to fulfill any land promises, but to save his people and to bring them into the church.
 
ccravens said:
I've gotten a lot of good information from John MacArthur over the years. Just finished his new systematic theology. While reading through his Romans 9-16 book, I ran across the following:

"Among those who most strongly insist that God is through with the nation of Israel are those whose theology is commonly referred to as covenant theology. It is ironic that, because of a distorted view of Israel, covenant theology cannot escape the implication that God is not faithful in fully honoring His covenants."

So, not being well versed in covenant theology, I was wondering the following:

*is this a faithful/accurate description of what most supporters of covenant theology believe? Do they believe that God is "through with the nation of Israel?
Click to expand...
If one reads carefully through Romans 9-11 one can see some key points:
  • God elects and saves His people. It is in this way God keeps His promises.
  • The doctrine of the remnant (see Rom 10) is that the elect are a remnant. How big or small that remnant can be debated. A remnant of the nation of Israel wil be saved until the end of the age. This shows MacArthur's contention is untrue.
  • I think Rom 11:5 nicely sums up the three chapters "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."
 
My wife can trace her ethnicity to Jewry, and God has saved her. He is still saving Jews--in fact we can be confident that every Jew that God has elected will be saved. So He has not cast off that race entirely as reprobates.
If you offered my wife a scrap of Middle Eastern real estate, telling her that was the final fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, she would say, "what need have I of dirt on this passing earth, when I have Christ, and Him forever?"
 
Trevor:

Jon is right that this view of a yet future ingathering of ethnic Israel in terms of the "Scottish view" (this really kicked off Scottish missions to Jewry in the 19th c.) was prominent, though, as Stephen notes, note even slightly dispensational (tied to land promises and political restoration).

One of the common misconceptions is that this view is solely the purview of postmillennialism. John Murray expresses the view clearly in his Romans' commentary as does Cornelis Venema is his Promise of the Future, as well as here: http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/02journal2011venema.pdf. They and some other amillennialists (of an "optimistic" sort, to be sure!) hold to this view (including me).

On a related note, I've just finished preaching through the book of Hebrews and it is, with its incomparable Christology, a Jewish apologetic non pareil that might be used to convert continuing, unbelieving, orthodox Judaism. I believe that this book may, in the ingathering, come to have more play than ever.

Peace,
Alan
 
Last edited:
Pergamum said:
I would love to hear more about that, interesting. I tend to be optimistic and so I have come to embrace that God may yet bless the ethnic Jews and not discard them completely but do a great work near the End.
Click to expand...

No, that's what I meant. The majority position as I understand it was an optimistic one towards Israel--the very position that Murray contents for in his book, The Puritan Hope. I loved that book and totally agree.
 
ccravens said:
Any general textbooks on the subject of dispensational vs. covenantal theology, which also points out the differences in each camp (traditional & progressive wings of DT)?

Similar to Faith Has It's Reasons by Boa and Bowman for apologetics, with a set of chapters each on classical, evidential, pre-suppositional, and fideistic apologetics.
Click to expand...

It's not directly to that point, but O. Palmer Robertson's The Israel of God is the book that finally convinced me of Covenant Theology years ago. He doesn't spend a lot of time on Covenant Theology systematics proper or debating the intricacies of Dispensationalism, but he carefully and clearly goes through Scripture and demonstrates how the Bible itself finds the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel in Christ Jesus. Once that is demonstrated, dispensationalism is cut off at the knee.
 
Last edited:
BayouHuguenot said:
I thought John Murray was postmil. If I recall correctly, Iain Murray and Sproul refer to him as postmil.
Click to expand...

It's understandable why someone may make that mistake, especially given all the confusion over clearly distinguishing post and amil from each other, which was not clearly done until the 1940s.

Palmer Robertson and Richard Gaffin, colleagues and students of Murray, both speak of him as amil. The latter does so in his piece on the millennial question in the WTS volume, Theonomy: A Reformed Critique and the former, I believe, in his Israel of God.

Peace,
Alan
 
Last edited:
Many false beliefs begin in order to defend a good value. For example, Charismatics often react against dead orthodoxy, Arminians often strive for good works, and I think Dispensationalists want to preserve hope for the Jews. The theological infrastructure they develop goes awry and is errant, but they are often defending good things to be valued. Sadly, many opponents of these false views go too far in the opposite direction in over-reaction and thus deny the active role of the Holy Spirit, or the place of good works, or the probable future hope for Jews to be gathered in. I agree with Venema that we can have a healthy hope for the Jews (even without advocating Dispensationalism). Christ will have victory over the whole world, after all, and the Great Commission will be successful throughout the whole world, not just the Gentile nations.
 
Last edited:
ccravens said:
Thanks so much Bruce. Going over your post again, slowly.

Looks like I need to study some good literature on the subject. Something that explains the differences between dispensational and convenantal theology. While faithfully/accurately representing both.

Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

I found "Sacred Bond" by Michael Brown to be an excellent primer on CT. However, as a former dispensationalist I am embarrassed to admit that I cannot recall a good reference designed as an introduction to that view. But one dispensationalist work did have a significant impact on me - "Issues in Dispensationalism" edited by Charles Rirey. Its tortured explanation regarding the "proper" understandings of the term "kingdom" convinced me that their hemenuetic is not sustainable.
 
The Christ of the Covenants is a good one by O. Palmer Robertson as well. It's one of the books they assign at RTS for their Covenant Theology course and makes a clear argument for God's use of covenants and what they are.
TheOldCourse said:
It's not directly to that point, but O. Palmer Robertson's The Israel of God is the book that finally convinced me of Covenant Theology years ago. He doesn't spend a lot of time on Covenant Theology systematics proper or debating the intricacies of Dispensationalism, but he carefully and clearly goes through Scripture and demonstrates how the Bible itself finds the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel in Christ Jesus. Once that is demonstrated, dispensationalism is cut off at the knee.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for all the suggestions. I have added 3-4 books to my Amazon wish list for next month. My monthly allotment for books has been spent already for April (didn't take too long..).
 
For what it's worth, a doctrine of the conversion of the Jews is implied in Larger Catechism 191:
Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
Click to expand...
 
Stephen L Smith said:
I love this book. But at the very start of the book Murray distances this view from any kind of dispensationalism. It is important to keep this distinction. If God is not through with ethnic Israel, it is not to fulfill any land promises, but to save his people and to bring them into the church.
Click to expand...
Good point, as there have been in the past and present those like myself who see the Lord still going to do a saving work among the Jewish people, not to grant the elected out heir land promises, but to have them receive spiritual blessings in Yeshua at the time of His second coming.
 
Stephen L Smith said:
If one reads carefully through Romans 9-11 one can see some key points:
  • God elects and saves His people. It is in this way God keeps His promises.
  • The doctrine of the remnant (see Rom 10) is that the elect are a remnant. How big or small that remnant can be debated. A remnant of the nation of Israel wil be saved until the end of the age. This shows MacArthur's contention is untrue.
  • I think Rom 11:5 nicely sums up the three chapters "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the Faithful elect remnant among the Jewish people since Israel existed would seem to indicate that those Jews to be saved now and yet to be until the time of the Second Coming would have a real promised blessing come unto them from God.
 
"In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18)

"And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life."

I thought Israel did in fact receive all the land promises.
 
Joshua said it even earlier:
"And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof."
Joshua 23:14
 
De Jager said:
"In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18)

"And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life."

I thought Israel did in fact receive all the land promises.
Click to expand...
I agree on the physical land blessings, but the Jewish people still appear to have future spiritual blessings involving the Second Coming of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AThornquist
  • Locked
On Covenant Theology
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
Peairtach
Peairtach
louis_jp
  • Locked
Book on Covenant Theology
Replies
12
Views
3K
Michael Doyle
Michael Doyle
~~Susita~~
  • Locked
Series on Covenant Theology
Replies
8
Views
3K
danmpem
danmpem
MeanieCalvinist
  • Locked
Books on Covenant Theology
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Philip A
Philip A
W
  • Locked
Chart on Covenant Theology
Replies
13
Views
7K
Presbyrino
P
Back
Top