I look forward to these teachings every week. You are my brothers for sure. God has gifted you with understanding. Its rarer than we would like to believe.
"At present, we do NOT yet see everything in subjection to him." - Hebrews 2:8. // With all the sin & death going on in the world I am thankful to have a hope of something better to come.
"In those days it will come to pass that ten men from every language of the nations will grasp the corner of the garment of a Jew saying, 'Lets us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." - Zechariah 8:23 // When did/does this happen in your timeline?
You're taking the OT alone without the inspiration of the New. If you take it at face value it has nothing to do with today. Jews DONT BELIEVE IN MESSIAH. When a Jew believes in Jesus he becomes a Christian or at the least calls himself a messianic Jew, but still he is A member of the body, bride aka CHURCH. A Jew is one inwardly and circumcision is of the heart. So either way, these people spoken of in your quote must be Christian belivers. True Jews always believe in their true messiah. It cannot be any other way. Are you trying to argue for dispensational opinions that say the "Church" will be raptured before tribulation? I don't get the distinction. No one is taking the garments of luciferians in this passage. There is only one messiah and We are all one in Christ. So, it has been happening for and to true Jews who truly know and are taught of the Father and have faith in Christ since there were true believers, if you wanna know about timeframes. Noah was one, Abraham was one, the Apostles were too.
Exactly, "A Jew" (not every Jew)--all one has to do is to look at all the commentators (long before Dispensationalism became a thing) and they pretty all identify that Jew as Christ Himself.
@@kb27787 That might be one way of looking at it. But, I don’t think every prophecy is about Jesus. There are many that aren’t about him specifically. This one specifically would need to be future because there weren’t people from every nation grabbing him and asking him about his God.
@@t.scottmajor1316 I agree with you that the land promises are still in force and will find their fulfillment in the millennium without question! The scriptures bare this out so don’t know why dispensationalism has to always be brought in to discredit the plain teaching of the Scriptures. These interpretations, we are hearing our preposterous
Yes, good point! Although Amillennialism is hard to be 100% certain about, that is our position. And according to Amillennialism, the thousand year reign is understood to be the reign of saints in heaven with Christ *now* during the church age. The title is therefore somewhat confusing since we are responding to the Dispensational Futurist Premillennial view there.
Excellent. I pray John MacArthur wakes up to correct prophetic eschatology. It’s puzzling to me, how he’s so good on doctrine but dead wrong on this church/Israel thing.
It is somewhat puzzling, but I think it comes down to what he refers to as his "literal hermeneutic" of the OT prophets. I respect that view and know that it comes from a desire to believe whatever Scripture says (as we certainly strive to do as well!). However, the NT authors show us how the fulfillment of these OT prophesies of Israel are fulfilled. And I think the NT should get the last word on exactly how we put our Bibles together. To be clear, the OT is never wrong nor is it contradicted by the NT! However, the OT is a "room richly furnished but dimly lit" (to paraphrase B.B. Warfield, I believe). And the NT brings light to OT revelation; it brings greater clarity. I am convinced that the NT lands somewhere between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Progressive Covenantalism is about the closest system we've seen to trying to find the bull's eye on this complicated issue. Thanks for watching!
Although Amillennialism is hard to be 100% certain about, that is our position. And yes, according to Amillennialism, the thousand year reign is understood to be the reign of saints *in heaven with Christ during the church age.*
@@boatkid888 Great question! Before I answer, I am coming into Revelation believing it is a highly symbolic book and that the word pictures and numbers represent things beyond a "literalistic" read. That being said, I think the image of Satan being bound is not literal, but is an apocalyptic image for Satan being restricted from deceiving the nations. Jesus said that in His ministry He bound the strong man and plundered his goods. The word "bound" is the same Greek word in both passages and means essntially the same thing. Christ's minsitry and especailly His death and resurrection "bound" Satan, the strong man, so that he could no longer hold the pagan nations of the world in deceptive darkness. Now Jesus is plundering his home (converting lost, hell-bound, Satan-enslaved sinners). Now the nations are no longer lost in darkness, but the gospel is coming and setting millions free. Revelation 20:1-3, "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and *bound* him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, *so that he might not deceive the nations any longer,* until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while." Mark 3:26-27, "26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first *binds* the strong man. *Then indeed he may plunder his house.*"
Amen You guys always try to defend mc Arthur. When we clearly see how he comes at us that he thinks we are clowns. Because be dont see the dispensation view
I understand your point! I (I'm Mark, the guy with the glasses in this video) have benefited greatly from MacArthur since my conversion 20 years ago. His study Bible and sermons have been a great help in my growth and I have numerous friends who have gone to Masters (his university and/or seminary). We quote him often at our church and still recommend him on most issues. The one big area of disagreement is here on the relatioship between Israel and the Church. MacArthur has, for 55 years of pastoral ministry, always been very black and white and has tended to state things quite starkly in the pulpit. On this point he speaks too disparagingly about covenant theologies (the sermon is from 1973!). However, he was good friends with R.C. Sproul (a covenant theologian) and has had many covenant theologians and non-dispensationalists speak at his conferences and event teach classes at his seminary. So he may not be quite as dismissive of us in real life as he occasionally is in his preaching. Thanks for watching and for your feedback!
Aye... I would not have minded being called clowns, but Dr. MacArthur has, in no unclear terms, stated that he believes "we" are anti-semitic and have liberal tendencies. But really, this is not the only issue with him (really, attacks on our character don't really matter at all in the grand scheme of things); but when one is a dispensationalist and believes in two peoples of God and splits the Bible into promises meant separately for each group, he is doing inestimable damage to the Church and its people and as they say, cause the Name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles by associating Him with this modern (wicked and apostate and yet blinded, as their fathers have been these past 2000 years) nation founded in 1948. I've heard even a (more sensible) orthodox Jewish rabbi who opposes Zionism based on the grounds that he considers his people still in exile (that is to say, the Messiah has not yet come and therefore they have no right to the land and God has not returned to them)--and he would be absolutely right in his logic (although he has the wrong premise)! Strange though that this unbeliever has more sense than someone who is supposed to be a high-profile Reformed Evangelical minister! When the Bible says the ascended Christ gives gifts to His Church: apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. do you suppose such a man as Dr. MacArthur is fits the description of such a gift? Is he not rather one of those teachers sent in judgment to a people with itching ears who do not bear sound doctrine (dispensationalism for the most part, is only popular because people are curious and want to know the future)? Dr. Sproul was personal friends with a whole bunch of heretics and very silly (tongues, charisma, prophecies) people as well. I would not look much into that.
Not a single generation of Israelites has gone without a descendant of David sitting in the throne of David. Jesus Christ who is a descendant from David from the tribe of Judah of the line of Pharez earned the right but has not yet taken over that throne because Jesus Christ is sitting on the right hand of the Father in the kingdom of haven. So who has sat in that throne of David, obviously humans but many believe that the last king of Israel was king Zedekiah. Zedekiah was the last king of Judah ( Jews) all the male princes were killed so no one could never again sit in the throne. But many have misunderstood the commission of Jeremiah and many ignore the the daughters of king Zedekiah whom Jeremiah returned to a small city in Judea; God said David s descendants were always going to be kings over Israel. Judah did not inherited the name Israel, Judah became the nation of Judah. The birthright belongs to sara twin brother of Pharez. Pharez committed a breach. The house of Israel was to lose its identity as Israelites and become to believe they were gentiles. Read Jeremiah. God told Jeremiah tear down , root out the crown ( throne) from Judah and plant , plant , plant it. God had told the Moses that god was going to plant Israel in a new land and move no more. Again it was Manasseh and Ephraim who inherited the name Israel not Judah. The throne of David is not in heaven but here on earth. God told David that if they( kings) were to sin God was to punish then with the sword of man. Psalms 89:25 just tell David that his throne was going to be set in the sea also. Where did Jeremiah take the kings daughters after picking them up from mizhpa to plant it. Ireland, Scotland and Great Britain. The line of Sara from the tribe of Judah never enter the promised land. They had headed north west into the sea, the British isles. The ten tribes of the house of Israel lead by Ephraim head been without a king since their captivity by the Assyrians but by the time Judah ( Jews ) were being taken slaves by the Babylonians the house of Israel had gotten their freedom and headed northwest to the coast into the sea. The breach between Pharez and Sara had to heal at a point in time . Many have misinterpreted in Jeremiah where God said I will cut the high cedar green tree and raise the low dry cedar tree and exalted the low tree. Many interpret this as referring to the Jews and gentiles( the church) not at all . God says of Ephraim you are my firstborn. Deuteronomy 32:26 is a curse for the house of Israel not Judah( Jews) but a Jew was always be king over the nation Israel not over the nation of Judah. The history of the kings of Ireland, Scotland and Britain are the descendants of king David from the lines of Pharez and Sara. Jesus said he is coming to sit in the throne of his father David , He is not coming to build it again but take over because it has never stop from existing. Yes Great Britain and it’s commonwealth nations is Ephraim. Genesis 35 and Genesis 48 . Ephraim brother Manasseh was to become a great nation of his own . Is it a coincidence that Great Britain and USA have always called each other brothers. Is it a coincidence that one of our national seals is name the seal of Manasseh.
Isaiah 16:4-5 says the tent is on the throne. These men claim that this means the tent IS the throne. That is obvious nonsense, because that would mean the throne is also the tent, so the throne would, itself, rest on another instance of this tent/throne thing. In short, you have an infinite stack of thrones which are also tents. Cute honorific concept until you realize that mere men like David and Solomon sat on this thing. Then the idea can clearly be seen for the blasphemy it is. No, Isaiah sees God restoring David's household (his tent) in and through a single individual, the messiah, the one who will sit on His father's (David's) throne. They read 1 Chronicles 22:10 as God's promise to restore David's throne "in Israel" and then pretend that has no bearing. If Christ's enthronement occurs outside of Jerusalem and Israel altogether, how is the identification of His throne as belonging to His father David not arbitrary?
@@Mendezfarriercompany306 You are correct to say the context makes it clear. Clearly the throne is in the tent. Presenter asked the question, "Can we all agree that the tent of David is the throne of David?" No, that would be a foolish thing to agree to. The willingness of folk to bend scripture to get David's throne into heaven is mind-boggling.
You can watch the whole Progressive Covenantalism series in order here:
th-cam.com/play/PL4nNmjgYbRZ6ji7QJxyxIr90JbCcpK9JR.html
I look forward to these teachings every week. You are my brothers for sure. God has gifted you with understanding. Its rarer than we would like to believe.
I agree.
Thanks for listening and for the encouraging words!
"At present, we do NOT yet see everything in subjection to him." - Hebrews 2:8. // With all the sin & death going on in the world I am thankful to have a hope of something better to come.
Solid teaching
"In those days it will come to pass that ten men from every language of the nations will grasp the corner of the garment of a Jew saying, 'Lets us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you." - Zechariah 8:23 // When did/does this happen in your timeline?
You're taking the OT alone without the inspiration of the New. If you take it at face value it has nothing to do with today. Jews DONT BELIEVE IN MESSIAH. When a Jew believes in Jesus he becomes a Christian or at the least calls himself a messianic Jew, but still he is A member of the body, bride aka CHURCH. A Jew is one inwardly and circumcision is of the heart. So either way, these people spoken of in your quote must be Christian belivers. True Jews always believe in their true messiah. It cannot be any other way. Are you trying to argue for dispensational opinions that say the "Church" will be raptured before tribulation? I don't get the distinction. No one is taking the garments of luciferians in this passage. There is only one messiah and We are all one in Christ. So, it has been happening for and to true Jews who truly know and are taught of the Father and have faith in Christ since there were true believers, if you wanna know about timeframes. Noah was one, Abraham was one, the Apostles were too.
Noah was a Jew?
Exactly, "A Jew" (not every Jew)--all one has to do is to look at all the commentators (long before Dispensationalism became a thing) and they pretty all identify that Jew as Christ Himself.
@@kb27787 That might be one way of looking at it. But, I don’t think every prophecy is about Jesus. There are many that aren’t about him specifically. This one specifically would need to be future because there weren’t people from every nation grabbing him and asking him about his God.
@@t.scottmajor1316
I agree with you that the land promises are still in force and will find their fulfillment in the millennium without question! The scriptures bare this out so don’t know why dispensationalism has to always be brought in to discredit the plain teaching of the Scriptures.
These interpretations, we are hearing our preposterous
What if today IS in the Millennium?
It is
@@Mendezfarriercompany306 agreed.👍🏻
Yes, good point! Although Amillennialism is hard to be 100% certain about, that is our position. And according to Amillennialism, the thousand year reign is understood to be the reign of saints in heaven with Christ *now* during the church age.
The title is therefore somewhat confusing since we are responding to the Dispensational Futurist Premillennial view there.
@@NorthAvenueChurch I mainly take the Post view, and many if not most of us consider it to be now as well.
MacArthur, like other dispensationalist, go as far as calling brothers in Christ “antisemites” for not agreeing with their view.
Excellent. I pray John MacArthur wakes up to correct prophetic eschatology. It’s puzzling to me, how he’s so good on doctrine but dead wrong on this church/Israel thing.
It is somewhat puzzling, but I think it comes down to what he refers to as his "literal hermeneutic" of the OT prophets. I respect that view and know that it comes from a desire to believe whatever Scripture says (as we certainly strive to do as well!). However, the NT authors show us how the fulfillment of these OT prophesies of Israel are fulfilled. And I think the NT should get the last word on exactly how we put our Bibles together.
To be clear, the OT is never wrong nor is it contradicted by the NT! However, the OT is a "room richly furnished but dimly lit" (to paraphrase B.B. Warfield, I believe). And the NT brings light to OT revelation; it brings greater clarity.
I am convinced that the NT lands somewhere between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Progressive Covenantalism is about the closest system we've seen to trying to find the bull's eye on this complicated issue.
Thanks for watching!
A lot to chew on here. Am I understanding that we are in the millennial kingdom now?
Although Amillennialism is hard to be 100% certain about, that is our position. And yes, according to Amillennialism, the thousand year reign is understood to be the reign of saints *in heaven with Christ during the church age.*
Which is now going on 2000 years ?😮
@@NorthAvenueChurch would your position hold that satan was bound for the first 1000 years, and we are now in the time of his release?
@@boatkid888 Great question! Before I answer, I am coming into Revelation believing it is a highly symbolic book and that the word pictures and numbers represent things beyond a "literalistic" read.
That being said, I think the image of Satan being bound is not literal, but is an apocalyptic image for Satan being restricted from deceiving the nations. Jesus said that in His ministry He bound the strong man and plundered his goods. The word "bound" is the same Greek word in both passages and means essntially the same thing. Christ's minsitry and especailly His death and resurrection "bound" Satan, the strong man, so that he could no longer hold the pagan nations of the world in deceptive darkness. Now Jesus is plundering his home (converting lost, hell-bound, Satan-enslaved sinners). Now the nations are no longer lost in darkness, but the gospel is coming and setting millions free.
Revelation 20:1-3,
"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and *bound* him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, *so that he might not deceive the nations any longer,* until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while."
Mark 3:26-27,
"26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first *binds* the strong man. *Then indeed he may plunder his house.*"
Amen
You guys always try to defend mc Arthur. When we clearly see how he comes at us that he thinks we are clowns. Because be dont see the dispensation view
I understand your point! I (I'm Mark, the guy with the glasses in this video) have benefited greatly from MacArthur since my conversion 20 years ago. His study Bible and sermons have been a great help in my growth and I have numerous friends who have gone to Masters (his university and/or seminary). We quote him often at our church and still recommend him on most issues. The one big area of disagreement is here on the relatioship between Israel and the Church.
MacArthur has, for 55 years of pastoral ministry, always been very black and white and has tended to state things quite starkly in the pulpit. On this point he speaks too disparagingly about covenant theologies (the sermon is from 1973!). However, he was good friends with R.C. Sproul (a covenant theologian) and has had many covenant theologians and non-dispensationalists speak at his conferences and event teach classes at his seminary. So he may not be quite as dismissive of us in real life as he occasionally is in his preaching.
Thanks for watching and for your feedback!
Aye... I would not have minded being called clowns, but Dr. MacArthur has, in no unclear terms, stated that he believes "we" are anti-semitic and have liberal tendencies.
But really, this is not the only issue with him (really, attacks on our character don't really matter at all in the grand scheme of things); but when one is a dispensationalist and believes in two peoples of God and splits the Bible into promises meant separately for each group, he is doing inestimable damage to the Church and its people and as they say, cause the Name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles by associating Him with this modern (wicked and apostate and yet blinded, as their fathers have been these past 2000 years) nation founded in 1948. I've heard even a (more sensible) orthodox Jewish rabbi who opposes Zionism based on the grounds that he considers his people still in exile (that is to say, the Messiah has not yet come and therefore they have no right to the land and God has not returned to them)--and he would be absolutely right in his logic (although he has the wrong premise)! Strange though that this unbeliever has more sense than someone who is supposed to be a high-profile Reformed Evangelical minister!
When the Bible says the ascended Christ gives gifts to His Church: apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. do you suppose such a man as Dr. MacArthur is fits the description of such a gift? Is he not rather one of those teachers sent in judgment to a people with itching ears who do not bear sound doctrine (dispensationalism for the most part, is only popular because people are curious and want to know the future)?
Dr. Sproul was personal friends with a whole bunch of heretics and very silly (tongues, charisma, prophecies) people as well. I would not look much into that.
Not a single generation of Israelites has gone without a descendant of David sitting in the throne of David. Jesus Christ who is a descendant from David from the tribe of Judah of the line of Pharez earned the right but has not yet taken over that throne because Jesus Christ is sitting on the right hand of the Father in the kingdom of haven. So who has sat in that throne of David, obviously humans but many believe that the last king of Israel was king Zedekiah. Zedekiah was the last king of Judah ( Jews) all the male princes were killed so no one could never again sit in the throne. But many have misunderstood the commission of Jeremiah and many ignore the the daughters of king Zedekiah whom Jeremiah returned to a small city in Judea; God said David s descendants were always going to be kings over Israel. Judah did not inherited the name Israel, Judah became the nation of Judah. The birthright belongs to sara twin brother of Pharez. Pharez committed a breach. The house of Israel was to lose its identity as Israelites and become to believe they were gentiles. Read Jeremiah. God told Jeremiah tear down , root out the crown ( throne) from Judah and plant , plant , plant it. God had told the Moses that god was going to plant Israel in a new land and move no more. Again it was Manasseh and Ephraim who inherited the name Israel not Judah. The throne of David is not in heaven but here on earth. God told David that if they( kings) were to sin God was to punish then with the sword of man. Psalms 89:25 just tell David that his throne was going to be set in the sea also. Where did Jeremiah take the kings daughters after picking them up from mizhpa to plant it. Ireland, Scotland and Great Britain. The line of Sara from the tribe of Judah never enter the promised land. They had headed north west into the sea, the British isles. The ten tribes of the house of Israel lead by Ephraim head been without a king since their captivity by the Assyrians but by the time Judah ( Jews ) were being taken slaves by the Babylonians the house of Israel had gotten their freedom and headed northwest to the coast into the sea. The breach between Pharez and Sara had to heal at a point in time . Many have misinterpreted in Jeremiah where God said I will cut the high cedar green tree and raise the low dry cedar tree and exalted the low tree. Many interpret this as referring to the Jews and gentiles( the church) not at all . God says of Ephraim you are my firstborn. Deuteronomy 32:26 is a curse for the house of Israel not Judah( Jews) but a Jew was always be king over the nation Israel not over the nation of Judah. The history of the kings of Ireland, Scotland and Britain are the descendants of king David from the lines of Pharez and Sara. Jesus said he is coming to sit in the throne of his father David , He is not coming to build it again but take over because it has never stop from existing. Yes Great Britain and it’s commonwealth nations is Ephraim. Genesis 35 and Genesis 48 . Ephraim brother Manasseh was to become a great nation of his own . Is it a coincidence that Great Britain and USA have always called each other brothers. Is it a coincidence that one of our national seals is name the seal of Manasseh.
Isaiah 16:4-5 says the tent is on the throne. These men claim that this means the tent IS the throne. That is obvious nonsense, because that would mean the throne is also the tent, so the throne would, itself, rest on another instance of this tent/throne thing. In short, you have an infinite stack of thrones which are also tents. Cute honorific concept until you realize that mere men like David and Solomon sat on this thing. Then the idea can clearly be seen for the blasphemy it is. No, Isaiah sees God restoring David's household (his tent) in and through a single individual, the messiah, the one who will sit on His father's (David's) throne.
They read 1 Chronicles 22:10 as God's promise to restore David's throne "in Israel" and then pretend that has no bearing. If Christ's enthronement occurs outside of Jerusalem and Israel altogether, how is the identification of His throne as belonging to His father David not arbitrary?
The context makes it clear. Read again
Was there a throne in the tent or did God's presence fill the tent? So the throne was the tent?
@@Mendezfarriercompany306 You are correct to say the context makes it clear. Clearly the throne is in the tent. Presenter asked the question, "Can we all agree that the tent of David is the throne of David?" No, that would be a foolish thing to agree to. The willingness of folk to bend scripture to get David's throne into heaven is mind-boggling.
@@ArchDLuxe is the throne next to God David's throne ?
@ArchDLuxe ok so where us the physical throne? Even if rebuilt it is not his. He died and took over bt his son and lost by his son sin?