Disciples of Christ live between two cultures–this world and the next. As missionaries, we have joined the armada of evangelists Jesus commissioned to make disciples.
Disciples of Christ live between two cultures–this world and the next. As missionaries, we have joined the armada of evangelists Jesus commissioned to make disciples.
Children engaging in classroom activities at MISEVE Classical School.
Children engaging in classroom activities at MISEVE Classical School.
Voices Of Virtue Ribbon

Review: MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto

Samuel Waldron. RBAP, 2008. 172 pages. Two of Five Stars 41GXO5u7d5L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg Some years ago John MacArthur delivered a message at his Shepherd’s Conference entitled, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist”. Because many Calvinists are not premillennial, you can imagine how this grew into quite a controversy. Both Samuel Waldron and John MacArthur are Baptists, Calvinists, and cessationists. On eschatology, however, they disagree. Early on, Waldron argues that–contra MacArthur–that supersessionism (Replacement Theology) and Amillennialism are not the same thing. In the next section he writes that there are actually “a zillion passages to prove the Church is the Israel of God” (p. 36) but deals primarily with Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16. In the end, Waldron withholds himself from calling dispensationalism heresy. Here it would be helpful to interact with some of Waldron’s arguments. The frist Weaknesses – there was much to disagree with. Here are five weaknesses to his arguments:
  • 1) Terms – the debate over terms (like supersessionism, replacement theology and Amillennialism) does not negate the primary distinction between Covenant and Dispensational Theology—a different organism other than the nation of Israel receives the promises of the OT. According to my understanding, “replacement theology” teaches that God has permanently changed his plans by replacing national Israel with the Church so that the Church receives all the blessings which were previously promised to Israel. It is my understanding that Amillennialism is a version of “replacement theology” which comes to the same conclusion. It teaches that the true Israel has been the Church all along. Waldron is clearly parsing terms here. To say that the church is the fulfillment of Israel is saying the same thing as saying that the church supersedes or replaces Israel.
  • 2) The prophets – Covenant theologians can give no meaningful exposition to prophetic texts. Like most Amillennialists, Waldron spends almost no time discussing the prophetic material dealing with God’s promises to the nation of Israel. This makes sense because the greatest support for dispensationalism is the Old Testament teaching of the covenants, especially the prophets. For example, I would love to see how Waldron could use the book of Isaiah and apply the host of promises made to ethnic Israel to the Church.
3) Illogical Leaps – Waldron concludes that since Gentiles are called “sons of Abraham” in Galatians, Israel had now become the church. But Paul is simply saying that “we” (Gentile Christians) are sons in the sense that we believe as he did. Another example is a faulty syllogism he insinuates regarding Romans 9. It goes something like this: True Israel are the children of the promise. Gentile Christians are also children of the promise. Therefore, Gentile Christians are true Israel. This is not valid.
  • 3) Michael Vlach – Waldron continuously dialogued with Michael Vlach (assistant prof at Master’s Seminary) stating that he represented MacArthur’s view. This was inappropriate considering this book is a critique on MacArthur’s message and the fact that MacArthur has stated his views very clearly in his NT commentary set.
  • 4) “Israel” in Romans 9 – Israel in Romans 9 cannot be defined as both Jews and Gentiles. A few reasons are: 1) Israel is clearly defined as ethnic Israel in Romans 9:4. 2) the second Israel in 9:6 is a subdivision of ethnic Israel. 3) This subdivision is also seen in 9:27. 4) Ethnic Israel is again found in 9:31. Waldron rejects this interpretation of Israel and writes that “such distinctions [Gentile/Israel], let me say it as politely as possible, are exegetical impossibilities.” This is interesting considering two of the best Romans commentaries available today (Moo and Schreiner) reject Waldron’s interpretation.
5) Kai – Waldron spends a lot of time on the Greek word kai in Galatians 6:16, where it reads “and upon the Israel of God” (ESV). He would see “and” as epexigetical and further describing the Jews being addressed in Galatians (this is seen in the NIV translation, “even”). While “even” is possible, it is rare. Correct hermeneutics reminds us that we ought to avoid these types of conclusions when the normal usage makes sense. In light of the harsh criticism Paul has given the Jewish legalists in Galatians, it seems best to take 6:16 as a reminder that there is a remnant within the nation that will remain faithful. his is a good example of the debated issues between dispensationalists and covenant theologians.