The tragedy of John MacArthur's gospel is that it imports the Mosaic Law requirements for Israel into the church age of grace.[1] Notice what one listener of MacArthur's radio broadcast "Grace To You" (a misnomer in that it is actually "Law To You") said in this regard. The listener of MacArthur's broadcast shared the following comment:
"John MacArthur leaves me empty and dry when I hear him on the radio. The letter of the law kills but the spirit gives life [2 Cor. 3:6]. I do love to hear Vernon Magee [i.e. J. Vernon McGee], even though he is dead [cf. Heb. 11:4], he is a wonderful man even with that accent that I have learned to love."[2]
This "dryness" is the inevitable result of lingering at the foot of Mt. Sinai rather than at the foot of the Cross. This experience mirrors the scene in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress where Christian is lured toward Mt. Sinai by Mr. Worldly Wiseman. As he draws near the mountain to seek relief from his burden through the Law, the hill begins to flash with fire and thunders so loudly that Christian falls down in fear, realizing that the Law cannot save but instead only condemns.
D. L. Moody, the great 19th-century evangelist, encountered this same "Law-gospel" in his day and remarked:
"I pity those who are always hanging around Sinai, hoping to get life there... [My friend] thinks I preach free grace too much; and I must confess I do like to speak of the free grace of God. This friend of mine feels as though he has a kind of mission to follow me; and whenever he gets a chance he comes in with the thunders of Sinai... I have made inquiries, and I never heard of any one being converted under his preaching: the effects have always dwindled and died out. If the law is the door to heaven, there is no hope for any of us."[3]
The remedy for this spiritual dryness is not to strive harder under the Law, but to take a deeper drink of the finished work of Jesus Christ — where our standing is based on His performance, not ours.
References:
[1] Here I'm referring to the dispensation of the Mosaic Law in the Gospels (the Gospel of Matthew in particular that MacArthur especially draws upon), not discipleship per se. MacArthur fails to "rightly divide" the Word (2 Tim. 2:15) by taking the strict requirements of the Mosaic Law — which Jesus preached in Matthew to bring His Jewish listeners to the end of themselves — and turning them into a checklist for salvation in this church age of grace.
[2] "Ray Comfort/John MacArthur teaches a false gospel" (ChristianChat.com). See the comment by Jezreel (#3), dated September 19, 2009. https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/ray-comfort-john-macarthur-teaches-a-false-gospel.6432/ (accessed 1-17-2026). The link to the archived page is: https://archive.ph/oYN7V (archive.today webpage capture).
[3] D. L. Moody, Sovereign Grace (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1891), pp. 48-49, brackets and ellipsis added.
You said :MacArthur fails to "rightly divide" the Word (2 Tim. 2:15) by taking the strict requirements of the Mosaic Law — which Jesus preached in Matthew to bring His Jewish listeners to the end of themselves — and turning them into a checklist for salvation in this church age of grace. Jesus said: Matthew 5:17 ►
ReplyDeleteContext
17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." The Sermon on the Mount wasn't to bring "His Jewish listeners to the end of themselves" but was for the purpose to show the requirements for entering/ruling (least and greatest) in the Kingdom of God. It was spoken to His disciples, who within that group, some had already believed that He was the Messiah.
I appreciate your comment, Mark. I certainly agree that Jesus fulfilled the Law rather than abolishing it. However, the physical evidence of that fulfillment is seen in the ripped veil and the lack of a Temple or sacrifices today. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we now come to a "throne of grace," not a "throne of law."
ReplyDeleteYour point actually reinforces my argument: Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount while the Mosaic Law was still the active dispensation (Gal. 4:4). The Church age of grace was yet future (Matt. 16:18). If we don't recognize this distinction, we risk turning the Law's standard of perfection into a checklist for grace. I also noticed you said the Sermon on the Mount is about "entering/ruling...in the Kingdom," but we must also consider the "perfection" requirement of Matthew 5:48. If the Sermon on the Mount lays out the requirements for entry into the Kingdom by our own efforts or self-righteousness (i.e. doing the best we can), then no one enters, because the standard is "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." This supports my point that the Law (and the Sermon) drives us to the end of ourselves.
One of the primary purposes of the Law is to act as a "schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24) to bring us to the end of our own efforts and drive us to Christ. To expound on this distinction between Law and Grace, here is an excerpt from a previous review I wrote:
"I've noticed that Lordship Salvationists base their theological beliefs heavily on the Law teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, but those teachings are actually to the Jews. Someone has well said, 'Although all the Bible is written for us, it's not all written directly to us.' Matthew was written primarily to the Jews. Whereas the Gospel of John, for example, was written 'to the church as a whole and to the world at large.' John in his Gospel presents Jesus as the Son of God, 'full of grace and truth' (Jn. 1:14). These are key distinctions which are important in order to 'rightly divide the Word' (2 Tim. 2:15). By failing to make this biblical distinction between Law and Grace, Lordship Salvationists in effect make the requirements of the Law (i.e. loving God supremely, Matt. 22:34-40) conditions for salvation, when in fact the Law was never designed for that purpose (Rom. 3:20)." —Excerpted from my review of John Piper's Coronavirus and Christ.
I appreciate our interaction. It enables me to share my thoughts and receive your feedback. Thanks. As to your comment on Matthew 5:48 concerning the "perfection" requirement to enter the kingdom. The word :teleios G5046 is used 17 times and in most uses seems to convey the idea of "completeness" in a person's walk, not sinless as to righteousness or justification. The rich young ruler asked "“Teacher, what good must I do to HAVE eternal life?” Jesus answered" If you want to ENTER into life, keep the commandments.” After telling Jesus that he has kept the commandments, Jesus gives one more requirement " 21 “If you want to be perfect,”[j] ( complete "teleios" )Jesus said to him, “go, sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” 23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “I assure you: It will be hard for a rich person to ENTER the kingdom of heaven! 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to Enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were utterly astonished and asked, “Then who can be SAVED?”26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Delete27 Then Peter responded to Him, “Look, we have left everything and followed You. So what will there be for us?”
28 Jesus said to them, “I assure you: In the Messianic Age,[k] when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have FOLLOWED Me will also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses, brothers or sisters, father or mother,[l] children, or fields because of My name will receive 100 times more and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first. " Peter's question is very important because he equates having "left everything and followed you" with "who can be saved." Jesus then equates "you who have followed Me" in vs. 28 with inheriting eternal life vs 29. What Jesus told the rich young ruler is ruling and reigning in the kingdom ,not justification. It ties perfectly with the Sermon on the Mount and the requirements for kingdom rewards.
But clearly in the context of being "perfect" (Matt. 5:48), Jesus tells His audience that "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). Furthermore, Jesus tells them to "be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48)! If that is not sinless perfection, I don't know what is. And so while teleios can mean maturity in other contexts (like James 1:4), Jesus’ specific comparison to the Father in Matthew 5 makes the "sinless" standard the only logical conclusion in this context. See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words on the word teleios, definition 1. (b): "complete, conveying the idea of goodness without necessary reference to maturity...Matt. 5:48." Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives a similar definition for teleios: "pertaining to being fully developed in a moral sense...Mt 5:48" (3rd edition, p. 996). That's no doubt why the translators used the word "perfect" to translate teleios in Matthew 5:48, rather than simply "mature". But either way, Jesus is requiring a level of perfection that clearly no one can attain by their own efforts (as I stated in my previous comment). So my point stands. Self-effort to attain the level of perfection that Jesus required is futile, because we are all fallen sinners (cf. Rom. 3:10, 23). The solution is not to try harder, but to rest in Christ's finished work! "For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4).
ReplyDeleteAnd furthermore, even with your appeal to Jesus' interaction with the rich young ruler, Jesus' disciples clearly understood Him to be referring to salvation, not merely rewards/reigning in the kingdom. Because they respond to Jesus' statements by saying, "Who then can be saved?!" The NASB reads: "When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” (Matt. 19:25). Note that the Greek word for "saved" in Matthew 19:25 is sōthēnai (from sōzō), which specifically refers to deliverance/salvation. In addition to this, only saved people enter the kingdom, the unbelievers are cast out. Many Bible verses teach this, but one example is John 3:3: "Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.'"
Furthermore, I wouldn't interpret Peter's question in Matthew 19:27 the way you have done. You apparently think that Peter's question shows that Jesus was somehow only talking about rewards. But that is a forced and unnecessary conclusion, and I'll tell you why. When Peter responds to Jesus and says, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?" (Matt. 19:27), he is simply operating under the assumption that he is one of those saved people who will enter into God's kingdom. In other words, Peter's question presupposes his inclusion in the kingdom. So he is not reinterpreting what Jesus said or changing what Jesus said about salvation. Rather, Peter is moving from salvation to rewards. In other words, Peter is acknowledging that Jesus was referring to salvation, and Peter moves or advances from that topic to the topic of rewards.
ReplyDeleteThis understanding of Peter's question faithfully preserves the distinction between the gift and the reward. In other words, Peter isn't equating "leaving everything" with the price of salvation; he is asking about the consequences of his discipleship now that the question of "who can be saved" has been answered by Jesus' appeal to God's power (v. 26).
Here is a summary of my argument:
Lexical: Teleios ("perfect") in Matt 5:48 refers to the moral character of God, which is an impossible standard for fallen humanity.
Exegesis: The disciples asked "Who then can be saved?" (sōthēnai), not "Who then can get a better reward?" (Matt 19:25), recognizing that the standard for entry is divine, not human.
Logical: Peter's subsequent question about "what will there be for us" (Matt 19:27) is the natural inquiry of a disciple who has already accepted the "gift" of salvation and is now curious about the "reward" for faithful service.
Luke1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Delete6 And they were both righteous (dikaios GR1342) before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke1:73 "The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness(dikaiosyneGR1343) before him, all the days of our life." Matthew1:19 19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just( dikaios Gr1342) man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." Matthew5:20 20 "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness(dikaiosyne GR1343) shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew6:33 33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;(dikaiosyne Gr1343) and all these things shall be added unto you." Matthew7:13-14 13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. "
Nope. We just see things differently. Till next time.
DeleteThank you for sharing those Bible verses. Would you care to elaborate?
ReplyDeleteYes, it's the difference between Law and Grace, or self-righteousness vs. Christ's righteousness. The Apostle Paul says: "not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" (Phil. 3:9). Let us heed the warning of Martin Luther when he instructs us not to confuse Law with Grace:
ReplyDelete"Therefore I warn you, and each one of you, especially such as are to be directors of the conscience, that you exercise yourselves in study, reading, meditation and prayer, so as you may be able to instruct and comfort both your own and others' consciences in the time of temptation, and to bring them back from the law to grace, from the active (or working) righteousness to the passive (or received) righteousness: in a word, from Moses to Christ." (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, as quoted in Edward Fisher's The Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. vi.)