John MacArthur claims "no allegories in Scripture" - dispensationalist delusions

Read and understand.

Jesus said that their righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. Jesus said that they must be perfect. This was pointing toward his righteousness and holiness. He was preparing the Jews to receive him. It was pre-evangelism, if you want to view it that way.

The dispensationalist view of the Sermon on the Mount is disgusting and attempts to avoid the obedience that is required for believers, who are united with Christ, and being transformed by this union throughout their lives.

And make no mistake...many dispensationalists are simply using their theology as a cloak for evil. I know that many are trying to live holy lives too, but the seeds for antionomianism are clearly present in dispensational circles. Grace Evangelical Society is one such group.

Concerning the dispensationalist/covenant theology argument, which is assuredly foundational to the amillennial issue, I would suggest that the real issue with dispensationalism involves how they read NT references to the OT.

The apostles and Christ were definitely not dispensational in how they used OT Scripture, as they take Scripture applying to Israel and apply it to Jesus or believers, who are Jesus' body.

For example, you can read Matthew and see that Matthew takes Scriptures applying to Israel and applies them to Jesus.

Matthew 2:14-15 4 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Hosea 11:1 1 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

Why?

Jesus is true Israel.

And, Matthew does this over and over again in his gospel. That is because he wanted to show them that Jesus was the true Israel, as well as being the true Adam. He defeated evil, whereas the first Adam and first Israel did not. That is why the desert temptation scene is presented in Matthew 4. It was an echo of Adam's testing in the Garden of Eden, and Israel's testing in the wilderness.

And, Peter does the same thing for the Church when he takes Scriptures applying to Israel in Exodus 19 and alludes to them in his epistle.

Exodus 19:5-6 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

1 Peter 2:9-10 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Why?

The Church, as Jesus' body, is True Israel.

It's really not hard to figure out that the Apostles believed in "covenant theology" because they take Scriptures applying to Israel and apply them to Jesus or the Church.

GK Beale and DA Carson wrote a long commentary where they examine every incidence where the NT quotes or alludes to the OT. It is on my reading list.

https://smile.amazon.com/Commentary...ed+in+the+new+testament&qid=1583315983&sr=8-2



Somehow I don't think many dispensationalists will be reading this. I plan on buying a copy though


This relates to John MacArthur indirectly. My guess is that he would acknowledge these parallels with Adam and Israel, begrudgedly, but he does not realize how his theology of dispensationalism is inconsistent with this observation.

In fact, I'm reading his study bible right now..he seems to see some parallels between Jesus' testing in the wilderness, and Israel, but he downplays them. From what I'm seeing in a quick glance, he doesn't even notice the connection between Adam and Jesus. However, he would note that in Romans 5 because it's unavoidable.

So, this is another issue I would have with dispensationalists.....they are allergic to typology which is APPARENT. And, this messes up their metanarrative of Scripture.

In Genesis God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. Adam was told not to eat the fruit and was warned
that on the day he ate it he would die. Adam died age 930 not within 24 hours as some might expect. This is why it says that
1000 years equal one day in Peters epistle. The Millennium spoken of in Revelation is equal to the seventh day in Genesis when
God rested. At the end of that day a new heaven and earth are created and the old creation is gone forever.

I'm behind the 8 ball if you will on dispensationalism. Could some one offer the cliff notes

Is there some sheep lost?

Lost sheep simply defines the un-redeemed or believers who do foolish things as if there was no God in their heart. .

We can go astray like one. It becomes the lost sheep of the born again Israel, the elect.

Psalm 119:176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.

Yes the gospel as it is written from faith the unseen to the same faith. It reveals how Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again

I think there is more than meets the eye in the length of Adam's years. I believe his lifespan of 930 years is symbolic, when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he was denied access to the tree of life, had he still had access to the tree of life then he would have lived a thousand years symbolically.

This symbolic 1000 number is related to the saints that "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in John's revelation. This is symbolic of a life spent with access to the tree of life. All born again believers live a "thousand years" regardless of how long they physically live because they have access to the water of life and the tree of life which are symbolic of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Dispensationalism is simply a method of interpreting Scripture in its plain literal sense, so as to avoid spiritual confusion, and keep things in context.

Dispensationalists have concluded that because of the different covenants at different times, there were also corresponding dispensations -- periods when God's dealings with mankind were distinctive. Many believe that the Bible reveals seven dispensations, but there are actually only four specific covenants related to the dispensations -- the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant.

Dispensationalism ensures that the Church and redeemed and restored Israel are not confused with each other. However Hyper-Dispensationalism (which has been adopted by a few) is false doctrine, since it introduces false divisions within the Church, and also promotes false doctrine.

I tried to explain in another post that Jewish interpretation of scripture is studied at four levels. The foundation or first level is literal.
Symbolism does play an important part in the interpretation but because there is a symbolic meaning to text doesn't
mean that there isn't a literal meaning as well.

Your in the wrong thread, you will just get disinformation in here

So it's just another partial truth, that leaves out important factors.

I believe in a literal interpretation of scripture, however that does not mean there is no allegory. It just means that historical narrative is read as just that, poetry as poetry, parable as a parable. So allegory will be understood as allegory in the reading because the context. For example Jesus says cut off your hand if it offends you. I'm very sure he is not advocating amputation nor that the offense actually resides in the body part. Rather he is making the point of purging one's life of stumbling blocks. We all know that sin isn't a matter of parts and objects, it's a matter of the heart, and the flesh. I say it in a different way, " don't go stupid places, or with stupid people, to do stupid things".

The non-dispensationalists that MacArthur criticizes wouldn't disagree with you.

One looks for symbolism in poetry more so than historical narrative, and the same is true in prophecy.

To be honest with you, I think dispensationalists are often hypocrites because they use the same methodology when they feel like it, and when it supports their theology, but criticize others for employing it because they don't believe Israel was typological of Jesus or the Church.

They will claim that others are interpreting allegorically or spiritualizing away the true meaning if they recognize the typology in certain places. They are basically redefining the rules of interpretation to achieve their worldview.

We would say they are "literalizing" rather than using literal interpretation.

One example is this: many of them claim that the New Covenant was made only with Israel and Judah, and not the Church, due to the wording of specific Scriptures. However, this is nonsense as we know the Church is under the New Covenant. The Church is united with Christ, both legally and vitally, and as a result are children of Abraham. Therefore the Church is spiritual Israel.

As a result, they do not understand crucial concepts that unite Scripture, because understanding and employing typology is crucial to a sound biblical theology.

They miss the full context of scripture, such as Romans 9 which explains that it never was about lineage but about faith. Then there is Ruth, who was a Moabite, of forbidden and cut off people yet there was Ruth. Then Rahab, a Canaanite woman from a people marked out for destruction.
Then one of Joshua's generals I can't think of his name right now, but he was not an Israelite. The old testament is sprinkled with names of people who were not Israelites yet were part of the big picture. It was always about faith.

Where did I say that there is no allegory? When one reads the Bible in its plain literal sense, it includes treating allegory as allegory and metaphor as metaphor.

BUT NOT MANUFACTURING ALLEGORIES WHERE NONE EXIST.

AND NOT MANUFACTURING FANTASIES OUT OF THIN AIR.

I didn't say that you did.
You explained dispensationalism, I explained my personal beliefs in contrast.
I do not know your personal stance on the matter.