VERITAS 201: Judaism

Dr. Sam Waldron wrote a friendly response to Dr. John MacArthur after his opening message "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is/Should Be a Premillennialist" at the 2007 Shepherd's Conference. I thought that Sam did a wonderful job (what I've read so far), particularly on pg. 42 where he says:

In the immediately preceding context of Galatians 6:16, Paul is engaged in a polemic against those whe were compelling the Galatians to be circumcised (Gal 6:12). Paul pursues this polemic by affirming that those who do this do not even keep the law themselves (Gal 6:13). He then asserts the true boast of the Christian is the crucifixion of Christ, not the circumcision of his flesh (Gal 6:14). Following this, Paul emphatically declares that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters, but a new creation (Gal 6:15). Now, in this context, would it not be startling, to say the least, for Paul to finish his polemic by referring to a subgroup of Christians who are distinguished precisely by their circumcision? Think of it. Paul has just said that circumcision means nothing in Christ. But now, according to the Dispensational interpretation, in the very next verse, Paul supposedly distinguishes between Jewish and Gentile Christians by exclusively awarding to Jewish Christians the honorable title, "Israel of God." And he does this solely on the basis of their circumcision. This would be a startling and, indeed, exceedingly unnatural thing for Paul to do-especially in this context. ...It is the new creation-not circumcision or uncircumcision-that makes a man a member of the Israel of God.

This is good stuff! But what Waldron gives with the right hand, he takes away with the left. For on pg. 66 while talking about Michael Vlach's position that "the Church cannot be Israel because a special place remains for Israel in the unfolding of redemptive history," Waldron says this:

In my previous comments I, too, have granted this is the case. It is certainly true that the gospel is to the Jew first and also to the Greek (as Paul says in Romans). It is certainly true that ETHNIC Israel has a place in the purpose of God. Romans 11 predicts that in EVERY generation God IS COMMITTED to saving a remnant of believing Jews. OLD Israel-ETHNIC Israel-HAS a STRATEGIC place in the purposes of God. This does not mean, however, that the Church is not the New Israel of God composed both of the remnant of believing Jews and the believing Gentiles who are grafted in to the one olive tree of God's covenant promises and people.

In conclusion, there is a DISTINCT PLACE for ETHNIC Israelites prior to salvation. But, there is no distinct place for them afterwards.

Unbelievable! One wonders if Waldron believes this how he could write what he wrote against MacArthur and why he left out the portion of MacArthur's message about modern Jews being the literal, GENETIC descendants of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob/Israel in his appendix (pg.146)? He said (in a chapter that I've not yet read):

I do not know for sure if MacArthur was serious, half-serious, or kidding when he spoke of modern Israel having DNA tests for Jewish ethnicity in his message. I do know that he thinks that being a physical Jew is essential to be Jewish.

And yet, Waldron again omits MacArthur's statement when he quotes him on pg. 103.

Why? Does he disagree? Does he think it's a ludicrous position? Is he trying to protect MacArthur? And is this not essentially the same position that he himself holds?!?

John MacArthur said:

It should be noted that Jews STILL EXIST today. That's interesting, isn't it? Have you ever met a Hittite? How about an Amorite, a Hivite, or a Jebusite? Anybody know any of those folks? How about an Agagite?

Now listen to what else John had to say, the omitted quote about DNA & modern Jews.

Of course, the answer is no, no one has met anyone from any of those groups of people, but neither have they met a modern Israelite! Modern DNA testing doesn't PROVE that someone is Jewish for there would by necessity have to be a known ancient Jew's DNA to compare against. Not to mention all of the other BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL hindrances. Let me name just a few:

BIBLICAL
1) Israelites were to maintain their genealogies.
2) Israelites were NOT to intermarry.
3) Israelites were REQUIRED to KEEP the covenant in order to remain IN the covenant community, otherwise they were CUT-OFF from the people of God.

HISTORICAL
1) The entire 10 Northern Tribes were carried away into captivity by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. and amalgamated into their culture, intermarrying with the various peoples of the lands.
2) The remaining 2 Southern Tribes were taken into captivity by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. and dispersed with finality in A.D. 70 leaving no historical, identifiable trace.

See: What I wrote in Sept 2006 about Romans 11 & The Future of Israel
See: DNA & 12 Generation Chart (w/32 Generations figured)

VERITAS 201

About Me

What I Was Posting When...

Blog Archive

Blogs I Favor:

John MacArthur-Why Every Self Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist

Saturday, January 31, 2009

What I Was Posting When...

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

An Open Response to Sam Waldron & John MacArthur!