Arch of Titus

Review: John MacArthur on Judaism, Part 1

Coming to the 18th chapter of Acts, I’ve entitled this particular message, “From Judaism to Jesus.” The story of the book of Acts has proven to us to be a study in transitions. I want to belabor the point for a moment, because I think it’s important for you to understand that.

The book of Acts, written by Luke, describing the early years of the church after its beginning, is really a book of transitions. It’s a book of beginnings. In a sense, it’s the genesis of the New Covenant. It’s all of the beginnings as the church begins to find itself and form itself and sever itself from Judaism. It was particularly a time of transition for the Jews of the early church. The old things of Judaism faded out very slowly, slowly, and the new gradually phased in.

The writer of the book of Hebrews gives us the theology of the transition, or the theology of the change from Judaism to Jesus. He very clearly lays it out. He says, for example, that Moses and David and Joshua and Aaron and all of the priests and all of those great characters of Judaism have all been replaced, as it were, by Jesus. He goes beyond that, and he says that the laws and the ceremonies and the rituals and the patterns of the Old Testament have given way to a whole grace kind of life. No longer are you ruled by externals but you’re ruled by the Spirit within.

God’s people, Israel, have given way to God’s people, the church. The system of multiple sacrifices has given way to the one final sacrifice. All the way through Hebrews, as we studied it some months ago, we saw the tremendous viewpoint of the New Covenant as it means the old is set aside. The writer of the book of Hebrews even says, “The old decays and fades away.”

John MacArthur
“From Judaism to Jesus, Part 1: Paul in Transition”
Commentary on Acts 18:18-23, January 13, 1974

As Borowsky has already said, Christian scholars, educational organizations, and other groups are already changing their own assumptions which previously provided for the continuation of supersessionism and attempting to pass down their knowledge to the church. But how well is that knowledge being passed down to the families who worship in their churches every Sunday?

The answer is, not very well. This may not be the fault of church leaders and scholars but of the individual Christian. Human nature tends to lead us on the path of least resistance in whatever activities we may find ourselves, including how we understand God and the Bible. While believers may go to church diligently, attend Sunday school classes, participate in mid-week Bible studies and the like, most won’t “go the extra mile” and actively pursue the latest research in New Testament studies, fresh understanding of Scripture, and become involved in interfaith activities. Most people get to a certain level in their lives, whether it is in marriage, at work, or in their faith, and then they’ll plateau and just stay there.

James Pyles
“Origin of Supersessionism in the Church:
Part 4: “Leaving Supersessionism Behind”
Messiah Journal, December 2012/Issue 112
First Fruits of Zion

When I wrote, “This may not be the fault of church leaders and scholars but of the individual Christian,” perhaps I should have clarified that this can include the individual Christian Pastors and teachers, particularly those who either don’t keep up with the latest developments in Biblical scholarship or who choose to discard them in favor of centuries old Christian tradition.

I’ve been encouraged to take a look at some of the sermons of various Christian Pastors including John MacArthur. But where to start? In terms of MacArthur’s recorded messages, at the Grace to You website, if you go to the Sermons page, you’ll see a list of sermons that goes all the way back to 1969. Assuming that MacArthur’s messages were recorded for every Sunday spanning from 1969 to today, that’s a lot of material. How should I choose something representative?

I decided to do a search on a topic that is of particular interest to me. What is John MacArthur’s opinion of Messianic Judaism?

I don’t know. The search didn’t turn up any sermons that specific, but I did come across a three-part series called “From Judaism to Jesus.”

The title alone is provocative because it full-out states that Judaism has nothing to do with the Jewish Messiah, as if Judaism and the Messiah are mutually exclusive terms. That seems not only inaccurate but a little crazy. The Jewish people from ancient days have been longing for the coming of the Messiah as the savior and deliverer of Israel, as the King of the Jewish nation, and as the Monarch who would place Israel at the head of all the nations and inaugurate an age of world-wide peace.

So how could there be a “transition” from Judaism to Jesus as if Jesus was an entirely new and unanticipated “thing” in the plan of God?

John MacArthurAccording to John MacArthur, Jesus replaced Judaism. This is classic supersessionism, also known as fulfillment theology and replacement theology. I’ve been assured that MacArthur is not anti-Semitic, but I don’t know what else to call someone who advocates a theology that in part has resulted in every persecution and pogrom that has ever victimized the Jewish people, culminating in the worst of all atrocities, the Holocaust.

In part one of MacArthur’s sermon series, he invokes the Epistle to the Hebrews to support his position. The primary reason I’m reviewing D. Thomas Lancaster’s sermon series Holy Epistle to the Hebrews is to see an alternate interpretation of this book of the New Testament, one that more accurately portrays the intent of the anonymous author toward his Jewish audience and that flows more evenly with the letters of Paul, which I believe also have been misunderstood, and which I believe, when correctly interpreted, offer messages of hope and good news to the Jewish people and to the normative Judaisms of his day (and for Judaism today) and only then also offer good news to the people of the nations as well.

MacArthur and other supersessionists like him, have put the cart before the horse and say that Paul, as well as the writer of the Book of Hebrews, offered “good news” to the Gentiles that grace had replaced the Law, and that if the Jews wanted a piece of it, they had to dismantle Judaism and leave its broken pieces behind them in the dirt, boarding the train to Heaven with Jesus in their new identities as goyishe Christians.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the victims of certain interpretations of Paul’s voice, especially those who have suffered the Shoah. Their suffering cannot be separated from the prejudices resulting from those interpretations any more than it can be wholly attributed to them. To them I dedicate the effort represented in this book.

-Mark D. Nanos
from the Acknowledgments, pg ix
The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context

You may remember this quote from my blog post Prologue to the Irony of Galatians. The traditional view of Paul and the mainstream historical interpretation of the message of the New Testament may seem totally benign and all but unquestionable to the Church, both across time and in the present, but the damage it has done to collective Jewry over the last twenty centuries has been incalculable.

Of course, men like MacArthur would counter that consequence aside, if how he preaches the “good news” is an accurate interpretation of the scriptures, he can only tell the truth of the Word of God. He can’t help how it’s been misused.

But he fails to ask himself the question (and frankly, I understand why) if he and the Church’s traditions and “ritual” interpretations of scripture are accurate. After all, these traditional interpretations of the Bible are based on the earliest writings of the “Church fathers” in the first few centuries of the common era, who unswervingly sought to distance the newly minted Gentile Christian “Church” from anything related to Jewish people, Judaism, and the Jewish nation that had been razed by the Romans and left wandering the diaspora without King, Temple, or Priesthood.

mj112The basic understanding of the writings of the Epistles has changed only somewhat for many Christians since the time of the Church fathers and the later Councils such as Nicaea, and for many Protestants, the core of Biblical interpretation has changed hardly at all in the five hundred years since the Reformation.

In the last part of my “Origin of Supersessionism in the Church” series for Messiah Journal, I wrote an optimistic message of how the Church was leaving behind this dark set of chapters from its past. Shocked out of apathy by Shoah, Christianity was seeking a way to reconcile with the Jewish people, and even in some cases, embracing the Jewish Roots of the faith. But that optimism may have been misplaced. I wrote it long before I read John MacArthur’s opinion on what Judaism means to Christianity today:

It was ordained of God. It’s a way of life, a point of pride, a divine institution, and it doesn’t die easily. We see that even today. Jewish people who come to Jesus Christ, if they’ve been involved in any depth of Judaism, and certainly Orthodox Judaism or Conservative Judaism in some cases, they become Christians, but it’s very difficult for them to break with all of those traditions. They very often hang on to those things.

Dr. Feinberg himself expressed to me that this is one of the tragedies or one of the problems the church has to deal with, and that is allowing the Jews to become a full part of the body of Christ. Very often, they themselves resist that. The statistics are staggering when you think that in LA there are multiple tens of thousands of Jewish believers and a few hundred of them are involved in local churches.

So it’s very difficult for the transition from Judaism to Jesus. The church needs to do everything it can to stretch out its arms of love to incorporate them in every way and at the same time allow those old institutions to die out.

It amazes me that MacArthur, in the same breath, can complain about how most believing Jews don’t join the local church and also make “from Judaism to Jesus” the key phrase of his diatribe.

Am I being too harsh in calling MacArthur’s sermon a diatribe, “a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something”? Maybe. I don’t think (I’m trying to be fair) that MacArthur meant to attack the Jewish people in general and Jewish believers in particular, but imagine how all this sounds to Jewish people.

How does this sound?

In the character of the book of Acts, the church is born, and Judaism in God’s eyes is a dead issue…

I personally know Jewish people who are deeply involved in religious and cultural Judaism who are also disciples of Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah and not only do they not see Judaism and faith in Moshiach as mutually exclusive, they see their devotion to the Messiah as the logical and ultimate extension of their Jewish faith and Jewish identity.

John MacArthur would take that all away and replace it with a pale shadow of the richness of a Jew kneeling before the King of Israel in homage, devotion, and in celebration that Messiah, Son of David, has come and will one day return to restore all that has been lost, bringing the world to perfection in the coming Messianic Age.

It’s funny, because MacArthur saw this vision as well, he simply rejected it out of hand.

It indicates the difficulty in his mind of seeing Christianity as a unit all its own composed of Jew and Gentile, but rather, they saw it as an extension of Judaism. It’s understandable, right, because Jesus was their Messiah? He was the fulfillment of Judaism.

burning-the-talmudMacArthur couldn’t have mapped out his theology more openly (and notice that he said Jesus was – past tense – the Jewish Messiah, not is). Instead of seeing Biblical history extending forward across the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings into the Apostolic scriptures and up through history to today, an extension of the original promises of God to Israel culminated in Messiah, he sees a total break in Biblical prophesy. The “extension” shatters at the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, and by the time Luke records the Acts of the Apostles, those promises have reformed into an entirely new and unanticipated entity. Jews are absorbed into the new thing called “the Church” where Jews and Gentiles are rendered as a completely homogenous mass, something like mixing the different ingredients for “Wonder Bread” into a bowl and baking it up in an oven. Once it’s fully baked, take out the loaf, slice it up, and each piece is pretty much like any other piece…

…anonymous and nutritionally deficient. Everything important has been bleached out.

You have to remember, then, that there was flux in the book of Acts, and that many of these Jewish people who are coming to Christ are finding it hard to get all the way over to the features of Christianity. Not only because of the strength of Judaism but watch this— Secondly, because all of the features of Christianity hadn’t been revealed yet. They really didn’t know what to substitute for it.

Christianity is a substitute for Judaism or rather, a replacement. As the missus would say, “Oy!”

In fact, the Romans considered Christianity a sect of Judaism. As they stood apart and looked at it, they just figured it’s a sect of Judaism. That’s how tightly tied it was.

I apologize, but there’s only one response to that last quote: Oh, duh!

To give you an idea of how entrenched he (the apostle Paul) was in Judaism, Galatians 1:13. He says, “You heard of my manner of life in time past in Judaism. Beyond measure I persecuted the church and wasted it. I profited in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation. More exceedingly zealous in the traditions of my fathers.” He says, “I was a Jew in every sense, even beyond the normal pattern of my fellows.”

Philippians 3:5. “Circumcised the eighth day of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, touching the law, a Pharisee.” He was a superlegalist. “Concerning zeal, persecuting the church. Touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless.” He carried through every little nitpicking iota of the ceremonial legalist system. He was a Jew at the limit of Judaism’s capacities.

Yet he became a Christian. When he became a Christian, you can’t make a change even though the man’s heart was changed, and he was a new creation, the transformation of his person took time. I’ve always said, “You take a person with a rotten temper and a stinking disposition and get him saved, and you’ve got a Christian with a rotten temper and a stinking disposition.”

MacArthur says that Paul was “entrenched” in Jewish tradition, but in reading MacArthur’s sermon, it’s more than abundantly clear that his own entrenchment in Christian interpretive tradition has blinded him to what the Bible is actually saying. MacArthur’s shooting all around the target but even after decades, he’s still missing it.

In the quote above, MacArthur unfavorably compares Judaism to having “a rotten temper and a stinking disposition.” He had to know how this would sound. I guess his audience didn’t mind. I know I would have, though. In fact, I do mind it right now.

So what am I supposed to learn from reading the sermons of Christian Pastors? What am I supposed to learn from reading John MacArthur’s sermons? Granted, he delivered this sermon over forty years ago, but based on his more recent sermons and commentaries, I have no reason to believe he’s changed his viewpoints on Jews and Judaism one bit.

If I’m being offered a choice between MacArthur’s version of Christianity and a more Judaic and Messianic perspective, based on part one of “From Judaism to Jesus,” I know which direction to go in.

The road

Addendum: In his sermon, MacArthur said that by Acts 2, God considered Judaism to be a dead issue. I just read that in 1942, Adolf Hitler said something quite similar and planned to create “a Museum of Judaism, to remember the dead Jewish religion, culture and people.” Go to the small article at and find out how Hitler’s intent completely backfired and ended up “as a living testimony to the indestructibility of the Jewish people.” I think that speaks to Christian assumptions about the “death” of Judaism as well.

For more, go to Part 2 of my review.


35 thoughts on “Review: John MacArthur on Judaism, Part 1”

  1. How such interpretations are made is a mystery to me. It’s like the interpretive tools of choices are a filleting knife,a butchers cleaver, and a copy of pilgrim’s progress.

  2. I was thinking about those moments when I consider taking another degree, this time in some sort of religious studies (not that I have the time for such an endeavor). There’s no religious school where you can just learn Biblical exegesis without also being taught the theology and doctrine of a particular denomination or branch of Christianity.

    That’s probably how most clergy and Bible scholars learn the “truth” about the Bible. Assumptions and perspectives are taught as if they are facts, and once those pathways are firmly established in a person’s learning, unless that person has a compelling reason to start thinking outside the box, they continue across an entire lifetime believing what they learned 20, 30, 40, or 50 years in the past.

    Those of us who have been exposed to the Messianic movement and/or to the teachings of Biblical scholars who write from the “New Perspective on Paul” position have had to take a good, hard look at the Bible and ask, “Is it really saying what I’ve been taught it was saying?”

    Once you seriously ask that question and start pursuing the answer, you can never go back. However, if you never ask the question and in fact, believe the question has no relevance because “the truth” of Christianity was established by tradition hundreds or even thousands of years ago, then you stop reading the Bible entirely and without realizing it, you are simply reading doctrine.

    We’re all vulnerable to that because we like to be comfortable and questioning tradition feels “dangerous.” On the other hand, who ever said the truth about God was safe?

    1. It is true that wherever one studies, those who attempt to teach the art of biblical exegesis tend to have their own views pretty firmly formed and thus they cannot help but convey what they believe they have already learned while applying those skills. However, if you were to find the time and resources to take up the pursuit of another degree, I believe I could direct you to an institution where you would learn biblical exegesis based on a desire to learn what the text actually says in its own context. However, you would need also to live temporarily in Israel in order to attend it. You might also need to learn Hebrew to some level of proficiency before settling into other classwork. Now, it is possible that your wife might enjoy participating in such an endeavor — so much so that you might have difficulty prying her away from it later. But, after all, you did acknowledge that learning the truth about G-d wasn’t necessarily “safe”.

  3. I did indeed, PL. Hmmm. Move to Israel, learn Hebrew, and then take another degree. That is amazingly tempting, but unfortunately very unrealistic given our current circumstances. Unless Hashem is going to inject a radical change into our family, as much as I’d like the opportunity, I don’t see it happening. It would be fabulous, though.

    1. I’m not sure you’re not envisioning something more daunting than I was suggesting. A number of Americans (often rabbinical students) take a sabbatical for a year (maybe 18 mo.) to take such coursework. You might be surprised at how much Hebrew proficiency you can obtain here in six months of concentrated ulpan coupled with life experience immersed in a Hebrew-speaking environment. I’m also not suggesting anything like starting the aliyah process, though I wouldn’t be surprised if your wife began to consider it after experiencing the varied Israeli religious environment (I also wouldn’t be surprised if she found it rather frightening). But, of course, you know your own circumstances; and I’m just throwing out a blue-sky (and somewhat mischievous [:)]) suggestion….

  4. But, of course, you know your own circumstances; and I’m just throwing out a blue-sky (and somewhat mischievous [:)]) suggestion….

    * chuckle * Thanks. Never know when a blue sky will come around.

  5. James said “That’s probably how most clergy and Bible scholars learn the “truth” about the Bible. “

    Most “Bible” scholars attending colleges and seminaries are neither taught the Bible or the truth about the Bible,, they are taught the doctrines of the institution they attend.
    The more I hear about MacArthur, the more dangerous he seems: Calvinist, Cessationist and Supersessionist: what an unholy trinity of theologies!

    Most Christians do not believe the Bible, they believe the doctrines taught to them by the above mentioned “Bible scholars”, like MacArthur.

  6. “the ceremonies and the rituals and the patterns of the Old Testament have given way to a whole grace kind of life. No longer are you ruled by externals but you’re ruled by the Spirit within.”

    Except when we Christians “aren’t” led/ruled by the Holy Spirit. After all, if Christians are always ruled by the Spirit then why the need for the reformation?
    We’d all still be Catholic.
    The Shoa would have meet vigorous resistance from all Christians everywhere.
    We wouldn’t have huge segments of “the Church” advocating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

  7. @Onesimus: I was just having that conversation with a friend of mine over coffee a little while ago. Of course, as PL said above, there might be a few places where you could get a Biblical education with few if any filters.

    @Sojourning: There is what God has given us and then there’s how we’ve screwed up all of God’s gifts. No one group has the corner market on truth and we probably all wear blinders to greater or lesser degrees. We all pray for God to open our eyes, but if He does, we’ll have to be prepared to see what we don’t want to see about ourselves.

  8. The interesting thing is that I am aware that Macarthur follows dispensationalists in his belief that national Israel has a purpose – I suppose for everyone to covert to Christianity and set up Neo-Calvinist churches in Jerusalem?

    I wasn’t aware he had this much disdain for Jews, but I assume it comes from his Calvinist training and perhaps his own arrogance, but I have never heard anything so mean-spirited from a minister. Can you imagine Spurgeon saying something like this, a man who earnestly prayed for and looked forward to the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel? Now I understand his attack on Arnold Fructenbaum a bit more. I suppose since “the law,” was replaced with grace, we’ve seen grace for 2,000 years? It sounds like he and Hitler would have gotten along well.

    As far as the, “rotten temper and stinking disposition,” perhaps he should look in the mirror?

    Anyway, who gets the last laugh; when was the last time a Neo-Calvinist won a Nobel Prize? How does he explain that, and that 25% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jewish?

  9. “when was the last time a Neo-Calvinist won a Nobel Prize? ”

    I’m not very keen on using this kind of commonly accepted abbreviation but I’ll make an exception because that comment REALLY deserves a hearty LOL!

  10. I did insert the addendum above to illustrate how such thinking has partially contributed to anti-Semitism in general and atrocities such as the Holocaust in particular, but I wouldn’t directly compare MacArthur to Hitler. The one thing they both seem to think is that Judaism was extinct (though for vastly different reasons and via very different approaches). History proved Hitler wrong and I believe history, and especially Messiah’s return, will prove MacArthur wrong.

  11. I don’t understand why there is this expectation that a Jew who comes to recognize Jesus as Messiah will suddenly and completely abandon his Jewishness. The Messianic community in my area isn’t very large, but I do know a few sincere Jesus followers whose practice is only enhanced by their love and reverence for Him. They don’t practice out of fear or legalism, but because they see His fingerprints everywhere. What’s wrong with that?

  12. I think that expectation is born out of long-held and long-cherished doctrines in the church and how they are allowed to override what the Bible is actually trying to say, Marie.

  13. You said you were looking for JM’s views on Messianic Judaism. Try this:

    Scroll down a little ways (or search the page for “Messianc”).

    You won’t like it (nor do I).

  14. OK, I just read the relevant portion of that page, Jerry. You’re right. MacArthur’s overarching vision of the Bible won’t allow him to even entertain the idea that he could be wrong. Since the paper was published in March 2013, it shows me that MacArthur’s opinions about Jewish people in general and Jewish believers who choose a Messianic path in particular haven’t changed very much.

  15. This statement above the article reveals a significant reason for MacArthur’s doctrinal problems:
    “Unleashing God’s Truth One Verse at a Time”.

    Sorry Mr Mac, the bible wasn’t written in “verses”. It wasn’t written to be addressed “one verse at a time”. That approach is guaranteed to lead to error, resulting in false doctrines that are supported by out of context proof texts.
    It’s therefore not surprising that John MacArthur has fallen for (and promotes) some very harmful theology, a very scary thing when he has such a devoted following.
    Also, God’s truth doesn’t need to be “unleashed” – He has already revealed His truth and it just needs to be received. A good starting point for us is to ask God to give us a love of the truth, and then receive that love when it’s given.

  16. To be fair, I don’t know if he meant that literally or if it was just a cute title for the article. That said, I think it’s no secret that I have problems not only with his preaching/teaching style but his content. I really have tried to be fair and to listen to MacArthur on his own terms, but he seems like a complete mismatch as far as how I read the Bible.

  17. OK, you’re right Tim. I think this refers to MacArthur having preached through the entire New Testament (or entire Bible) verse by verse by verse. My Pastor is doing something similar right now with the Book of Acts.

  18. Yes, “unleashing God’s truth one verse at a time” is a little slogan Grace came up with to highlight JM’s (general) practice of progressing through scripture as it was written. I don’t think it fair to assume it means that he’s taking verses out of context. On the contrary, I think this *style* of preaching is good exactly because it does present the scripture *in context*.

    Still, I always thought the slogan was unfortunate because it makes it sound like scripture is on a leash until JM comes along an unleashes it. I don’t think he really feels that way, but it does come across as rather arrogant.

    1. to highlight JM’s (general) practice of progressing through scripture as it was written”

      Scripture wasn’t written in verses but it is usually read, studied and preached according to verses. Usually with little regard for what is written either side of the selected verses.
      Keep this in mind next time a preacher starts his sermon with a statement like “Today’s text is…” or similar.

  19. McArthur says “The old things of Judaism faded out very slowly, slowly”… and I say “so very slowy that they NEVER did fade out at all !!!”

  20. @Onesimus – Yes, I know (and JM knows) that verse and chapter designations are an uninspired (and sometimes poorly placed) referencing mechanism — not part of the scripture itself. He is very much aware that every the passage must be understood in view of its broader context.

    So, I believe that you may be reading more criticism into the “one verse at a time” slogan than is actually warranted.

    JM usually goes through a book of the Bible over span of many months, discussing (what amounts to) a few verses at a time in context. I have no complaint with this manner of teaching, and in fact I wish more pastors taught this way.

    IMO, his problem is that his interpretations are stubbornly rigid, overconfident, and that he sometimes reads more into a passage that what is really there in order to make his point. I tend to think he is no longer learning or trying to learn, but just propagating a particular Biblical view that he adopted long ago.

    1. IMO, his problem is that his interpretations are stubbornly rigid, overconfident, and that he sometimes reads more into a passage that what is really there in order to make his point. I tend to think he is no longer learning or trying to learn, but just propagating a particular Biblical view that he adopted long ago.

      That’s the impression I get as well, Jerry. Very sad, since he’s the President of The Master’s College and Seminary. You’d think that as the head of an education institute, he’d want to keep ahead of the game by keeping up on the latest in Biblical scholarship.

    2. “I tend to think he is no longer learning or trying to learn, but just propagating a particular Biblical view that he adopted long ago.”

      The inevitable outcome when a great deal of the Holy Spirit’s continuing ministry is dismissed.

  21. @James – “You’d think that as the head of an education institute, he’d want to keep ahead of the game by keeping up on the latest in Biblical scholarship.”

    Oh, I think he reads a lot of current theological books. It just that when you’re extremely confident in your own views, you really don’t read with intent to challenge those views. Instead, you just read to critique based on how well it agrees with your views.

    That’s what I meant when I said he doesn’t try to learn. In order to learn, you must at least be open to the possibility that your understanding is wrong or incomplete. I don’t think he does.

    1. Which is really tragic, Jerry. When you don’t expect to be changed by what you learn, then you’re not learning at all and have reached an intellectual and in this case a spiritual dead end.

  22. This article is inaccurate about John MacArthur. The Title means nothing it is taken out of context as Jesus really did replace Judaism in a real sense. But the sense of something must be understood, which is one of the reasons people believe supersessionism, they don’t know the sense of something.
    John MacArthur is definitely a nonsupersessionist in every way. And preaches against supersessionism. Let’s not eat our own, that’s a waste of time.
    Go back to Grace To You, and search his series “Why every Calvinist should be a premillennialist” he spells it out pretty well there.


  23. Wow. I am no great fan of John Macarthur, and especially his Calvinistic stance, but you are being very decietful in your article.
    Judaism is Pharaseeism, and Jesus reserved his harshest condemnation for those leaders of the people whom Jesus came to “deliver from their sins” Matt. 1:21.
    “Judaism” of Jesus time, even up to modern times, is not devotion to the pentatuch, but the “teachings of men which make the word of God of none effect”. Devotion to the Anti-Christ Talmud, and the multi-gods of the Zohar, which make up the foundations of Judaism, are mutually exclusive from Christianity. How can one say that they are a follower of Jesus, while at the same time saying that they still follow the teachings of the rabbis who hated and murdered their own Messiah, and when the “Rabbis” of today still maintain there is no connection between Judaism and Christianity?
    I believe that you are sincere in your belief that 6 million jews were murdered during WW2, however, what about the other 94 million people that lost there own lives who were not jewish?
    Your arguments smack of what the rabbis teach as Jewish supremacy, and that one jew is worth more to god than all of the goyim put together.
    Your lack of honesty in what the rabbis teach shows me that you are a deciever or sorely brainwashed.

  24. James Pyles, I enjoyed reading this article. I recently have become familiar with Pastor MacArthur when he and Ben Shapiro had a public interview about religion and politics. I agreed with many things the pastor said and I felt he was very respectful of the Jewish faith and to Ben. I wanted to do more research on Pastor MacArthur and in so doing found some appalling diatribes against my Christian faith; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I listened to 2 of them and they were filled with such grotesque lies and things sorely taken out of context to make me dizzy…and terribly shocked, saddened, and disappointed to say the least. He was not the man he appeared to be from my first impression of him, which was overall very positive. I only disagreed with a couple things he said in his interview with Ben Shapiro. I’m a huge fan of Ben, btw. I was curious after watching that interview to see what he has said of Jews and their faith, if anything. I wanted to know if he was as two faced as I discovered. I found this article and read it. I really appreciated this article and the comparison to Pastor MacArthur’s take on Jews who become believers in Christ. My eyes are even more opened. I’m very intrigued by Jews for many reasons, one of which comes from my study of the Book of Mormon. In case you don’t know, this is a book of scripture comparable to the Bible. It is an ancient record of Jewish people who left Jerusalem about 600 b.c., not long before Jersusalm was destroyed. God warned them that Jerusalem would soon be destroyed and told them to leave. He guided them to the Americas. Their history in the Book of Mormon covers the time period of about 600 b.c. to 400 a.d. The crowning event in the Book of Mormon is when the resurrected Messiah, Jesus, appears to them and establishes His Church in that part of the world. Jesus said to His disciples in Jerusalem, “Other sheep I have that are not if this fold, them too I must bring..” One of those sheep Christ was referring to were those He had led to the Americas. America really is a promised land. Anyway, I tell you about the Book of Mormon because it is full of Jewish traditions and culture and is about how they come to realize that Christ will be their Messiah. Some of these ancient inhabitants accept that and some don’t and even reject God all together, and fail to keep the Ten Commandments of even the Law of Moses. They were often at war with each other because those that rejected God were taught to hate those that did and often tried to steal their lands, murder them and usurp power over them. It is a powerful book of scripture. It is Christ soaked. It was brought forth by the power of God to convince, in these latter days, both Jew and Gentile, that Jesus is the Christ. The Holy Messiah. And to prepare ALL of God’s children for the return of Christ. Because of my faith, I love Jews. They are my brothers and sisters. So, thank you for this article and I hope you will reject any negative thing you have ever heard about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and study the Book of Mormon. If you are sincere, God will show you that it is true. If it is, and it is, then this IS His Church on the earth, with all of HIS authority and priesthood power.

    1. Greetings, Stephanie. Sorry to be so long in replying to you, but I don’t visit this blog as often as I once did.

      First off, I grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada, which has a large LDS population, so I had many friends and neighbors who were Mormon, and I currently live near Boise, Idaho, which also is the home to many people of the LDS faith.

      I’m sure you can tell from my writing, that I find MacArthur “problematic” at best, and since I have an opinion on just about everything, I decided to write about it.

      Also, I’m sure you have determined from what I’ve written that theologically, we are probably not going to agree on a number of things, but people from many different faith perspectives have come here to discuss matters of mutual interest, so no one has to be in agreement here as long as everyone is polite and respectful (which you have been).

      I also like and generally agree with Shapiro on most things.

  25. The Reformed left Europe to come to America 1600’s. The Reformed came here to escape the rules of the Rabbis, the Pope and Mohammed. The Reformed were of different denominations and sects. Calvinists, Lutherans, Protestants, Mennonites, Amish, Baptists and Brethren then later on here United Brethren, Methodists, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists. Jesus was a Reformed Jew. The Reformation freed people from the superstitious rituals of the Jews, Catholics and Muslims. Those who stayed chose to cling to their ancestors roots. There is nothing wrong with anyone either Reformed or not Reformed. George Washington said anyone of any religion can come here, believe, and be free from religious persecution. Pastor John MacArthur is free here in America and don’t persecute him for what he says.

    1. Disagreeing with someone is not persecution, plus I doubt he even knows I exist. Oh, I disagree that the Rabbis had any appreciable affect on the Christian groups to left Europe to come to America. Jesus was not a “Reformed Jew” mainly because that stream of Judaism didn’t exist during his earthly ministry. He conformed to the Judaism of this time and, get ready for a shock, was closest aligned with the Pharisees.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.