Neither June or Gentile, Unity and Christ does not mean uniformity

Neither Jew nor Greek: Unity, Distinction, and the Future of Israel

One of the most frequently cited verses in discussions of Christian identity is Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The statement is glorious. In Christ, the barriers that once divided humanity in terms of access to God and standing before Him have been removed. Justification is by faith alone, and every believer—regardless of ethnicity, social status, or sex—is an heir of the promise given to Abraham.

Yet a serious misunderstanding arises when this verse is pressed beyond its context. Some conclude that because believers are “one in Christ,” every distinction God has established between groups or between the sexes has been abolished in every respect. From that premise it is sometimes argued that God no longer has any distinct purpose for ethnic Israel, and that the church has simply replaced the nation in the unfolding of God’s plan. The claim is that unity in Christ requires uniformity of destiny, and therefore the Old Testament promises made to Israel must be reinterpreted as exclusively spiritual promises now fulfilled in the church.

This conclusion does not follow from the text, and it creates unnecessary tension with the rest of Scripture.

Unity Does Not Mean Uniformity

Paul’s point in Galatians 3 is soteriological and covenantal. He is defending the truth that the blessing of Abraham comes to the Gentiles by faith, not by becoming Jews under the law (Gal 3:7–14, 26–29). In the realm of justification and inheritance, there is no favored class. The same gospel saves the Jew and the Greek. That is the unity he proclaims.

But unity of standing before God does not erase every other distinction God Himself has made. The apostle who wrote Galatians 3:28 also wrote Romans 9–11. There he insists that God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew (Rom 11:1–2), that a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom 11:25), and that “all Israel will be saved” when the Deliverer comes from Zion (Rom 11:26–27). He can hold both truths without contradiction: there is no distinction in the way of salvation, and yet God retains a distinct future purpose for the people to whom He made irrevocable promises (Rom 11:29).

The same logic applies to the statement “there is no male and female.” Paul is not abolishing the created order or the consequences of the Fall. Genesis 3 still stands. The pain of childbirth, the toil of work “by the sweat of your brow,” and the relational tensions that followed the entrance of sin remain realities in a fallen world. The New Testament continues to recognize the distinction between male and female in marriage, in the life of the church, and in the created design itself (1 Cor 11; Eph 5; 1 Tim 2). Unity in Christ does not flatten every creational or covenantal category God has established.

Distinctions and Covenant Faithfulness

If the ongoing effects of the Fall remain in force even after Galatians 3:28, then the ongoing distinction between Jew and Gentile in God’s redemptive plan is not an anomaly. God pronounced blessings and curses in the garden; those realities persist. God also made specific, unilateral promises to Abraham concerning his physical descendants and the land (Gen 12, 15, 17). He confirmed those promises with an oath (Heb 6:13–18). He later bound Himself by covenant to David regarding a throne and a kingdom (2 Sam 7). The New Covenant itself is first announced in terms of the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer 31:31–34).

To claim that the unity of Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ requires God to set aside these promises is to force a false choice. Scripture never presents the church’s inclusion as the cancellation of Israel’s future. Rather, the Gentiles are grafted into the rich root of the olive tree (Rom 11:17–24). The natural branches that were broken off because of unbelief can be grafted in again. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

No Eschatological Conflict

There is therefore no eschatological conflict in affirming a future for ethnic and national Israel that is still distinct from the church. The one new man in Christ (Eph 2:15) does not erase the integrity of God’s word across redemptive history. God is not required to renege on the promises He made throughout the Old Testament in order to secure the unity of believers in the present age. His faithfulness to Israel is of a piece with His faithfulness to every believer who trusts in Christ. The same God who cannot lie to the church cannot lie to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Unity in Christ is real and precious. It is the ground of our shared identity and our shared inheritance. But it is not uniformity of plan or purpose in every respect. The distinctions God has made—creational, covenantal, and redemptive-historical—remain under His sovereign administration. The future He has outlined for Israel in the prophets and confirmed in the apostles is not a threat to the gospel. It is a further display of the same steadfast love and faithfulness that save sinners from every nation and make them one in His Son.

Before Abraham Was, I Am

Understanding Jesus’ Claim in John 8:58

One of the most striking moments in the Gospel of John occurs when Jesus tells the Pharisees, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). The reaction is immediate and violent: they pick up stones to kill Him. Why did this short statement provoke such a response? And how does it relate to the name God revealed to Moses at the burning bush?

The Words Themselves

In the Greek text of John, Jesus uses the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι (ego eimi), which simply means “I am.” This is the same two-word expression that appears in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) when God speaks of Himself. At the burning bush, God says to Moses, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14), and the Greek renders the key part as ego eimi. Even more frequently, the phrase appears in Isaiah and Deuteronomy when God declares, “I am He” — a solemn assertion of His unique, eternal identity.

Yet ego eimi was also ordinary language. Jews in Jesus’ day used it the way we use “I am” or “It is I.” A person might say “I am a teacher” or “I am the one you are looking for.” In John 9:9, the man born blind says ego eimi simply meaning “I am he” (the one who was healed). The disciples in the boat hear Jesus say the same words and understand them as “It is I; do not be afraid” (John 6:20).

So the words themselves were not forbidden or automatically divine. What made Jesus’ statement explosive was the way He used them.

The Absolute Claim

Notice the careful wording in John 8:58. Jesus does not say, “Before Abraham was, I was.” He does not say, “Before Abraham was, I existed.” He uses the present tense: “Before Abraham was [came into being], I am.”

The Greek creates a deliberate contrast. Abraham “became” or “came into existence” (genesthai). Jesus simply “is” (eimi). The statement reaches back before Abraham’s birth and asserts an ongoing, continuous existence that has no beginning. This is not a claim about longevity or preexistence in some limited sense. It is a claim to the kind of eternal being that belongs to God alone.

The Old Testament Background

Two streams of Old Testament language flow into this moment.

First is the revelation at the burning bush: “I AM WHO I AM… Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14). God identifies Himself by His self-existence. He is not defined by anything outside Himself.

Second, and perhaps even more directly relevant to the ears of Jesus’ hearers, are the repeated declarations in Isaiah and Deuteronomy where God says “I am He” (ani hu in Hebrew). In these passages God asserts that He alone is the eternal One, the first and the last, the only Savior, the One who was and is and will be. No other being may rightly claim this identity.

When Jesus stands in the temple courts and says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” He is drawing on this rich background. He is not merely claiming to have lived before Abraham. He is identifying Himself with the God who revealed Himself to Moses and who declared through Isaiah, “I am He.”

Why the Stones?

The Jewish leaders understood exactly what Jesus was saying. Their reaction was not a misunderstanding. Under the Law, claiming the unique identity of God was blasphemy, and blasphemy was punishable by stoning (Leviticus 24:16). They did not pick up stones because Jesus claimed to be a great prophet, or even the Messiah. They picked up stones because they heard a man place Himself on the same plane of eternal existence as the God of Israel.

A Clear Distinction

It is important to hold two truths together.

On one hand, the phrase “I am” was ordinary speech. Jews used it every day without claiming to be God. The mere appearance of the words does not automatically equal a divine claim.

On the other hand, context and grammar matter. When the same words are used absolutely — without a predicate — and joined to a statement of existence that precedes and transcends Abraham, the meaning shifts. The ordinary language is pressed into the service of an extraordinary claim. That is what happened in John 8:58.

What This Means

Jesus did not leave His identity ambiguous. In this single sentence He asserted that His existence is not derived, not created, and not limited by time. He stands before Abraham not as one more figure in the long line of God’s servants, but as the One who simply is — the same One who spoke from the bush and who declared through the prophets, “I am He.”

The stones that were lifted that day testify that the claim was understood. The question that remains for every reader is whether the claim is true.

Romans 11 and it's obvious an undeniable Eschatological significance

I have recently had an interesting conversation concerning Romans 11 with a postmillennial friend from my church who made the claim (or words to that effect) that the chapter has nothing to do with eschatology, and that the only reason anyone sees eschatological significance in it is because a futurist premillennial position forces them to inject that meaning into the text. I reject that notion.

Romans 11 is thoroughly eschatological. The claim that it has “nothing to do with eschatology,” and that any future-oriented reading is merely the product of a preconceived futurist premillennial system, does not withstand careful examination of the text itself or the testimony of many careful readers of Scripture across centuries.

Paul is not merely discussing present soteriology or the mechanics of individual salvation. He is unfolding the climax of God’s redemptive plan for ethnic Israel as a people, set within the larger drama of the ages that culminates in the return of Christ and the consummation of history.

The Text Itself Demands a Future Orientation

Romans 11 answers the question of whether God has permanently rejected His people Israel (11:1). Paul’s emphatic “By no means!” is developed through several lines of argument that move beyond the present remnant to a future corporate turning.

1. A temporary, partial hardening with a clear terminus.
   
2. “A partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (11:25). The Greek construction (ἄχρι οὗ) marks a temporal limit. The hardening is neither total nor permanent. It has a divinely appointed end point tied to the completion of God’s purpose among the nations. Once that “fullness” arrives, something decisive follows for Israel.
3. “And in this way all Israel will be saved” (11:26).
   
4. The “all Israel” of verse 26 stands in deliberate contrast to the partial hardening of verse 25 and the remnant of earlier verses. Paul has already spoken of Israel’s “full inclusion” (11:12) and their “acceptance” that will mean “life from the dead” (11:15). These are not descriptions of the present remnant; they point to a future reversal on a national scale. The parallel structure is unmistakable: present rejection → Gentile blessing; future acceptance → even greater blessing described in resurrection language.
5. The Deliverer from Zion.
   
6. Paul immediately anchors the promise in Scripture: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob” (11:26, citing Isaiah 59:20–21 and related texts). This is not a description of the first advent or the ongoing conversion of individual Jews. It is language of the Messiah’s decisive intervention to remove the nation’s ungodliness and establish the new-covenant forgiveness promised in Jeremiah 31. The removal of sins is presented as a future covenant act for “them” (Israel).
7. The irrevocable gifts and calling (11:29).
   
8. God’s commitments to the patriarchs and to the nation are not revoked by Israel’s present unbelief. The gifts (including the covenants, the promises, and the land-related hopes of the Old Testament) and the calling remain. This is the theological foundation for expecting a future national fulfillment rather than a permanent redefinition or cancellation of those promises.

Taken together, these elements form a coherent eschatological sequence: the present age of Gentile fullness under partial Jewish hardening, followed by the lifting of that hardening, the national turning of Israel to the Messiah, and the resulting climactic blessing that Paul describes as “life from the dead.” This is not a forced insertion of a system; it is the plain sense of the argument.

The Testimony of Faithful Teachers

This reading is not the invention of modern dispensationalism. Careful students of Scripture long before the rise of that system saw the same future for ethnic Israel in Romans 11.

J. C. Ryle treated Romans 11:26 as “one of the great unfulfilled prophecies of Scripture.” He insisted that “Israel shall be saved” means the Jewish nation and people, not the Gentiles (who are contrasted in the preceding verse) and not merely a small elect remnant. Ryle wrote that the Jews “shall ultimately be gathered again as a separate nation, restored to their own land, and converted to the faith of Christ,” citing Romans 11:25–26 among other texts. He regarded the future salvation of Israel as a people, their return to the land, and their national conversion as “clearly and plainly revealed.”

Charles Spurgeon repeatedly affirmed both a political/national restoration of the Jews to their land and a spiritual conversion of the tribes of Israel. Preaching on the restoration and conversion of the Jews, he declared that the literal sense of the relevant prophecies must not be spiritualized away: both the two and the ten tribes are to be restored to their own land, and a king is to rule over them. He linked this national restoration to the coming of the fullness of the Gentiles and the dawn of millennial blessing. Spurgeon saw “all Israel shall be saved” as pointing to a future corporate turning of the nation, not merely the ongoing salvation of a remnant. He insisted that the covenant made with Abraham is not revoked and that heaven and earth shall pass away before the chosen nation is blotted out.

John MacArthur has consistently taught that “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 refers to national Israel in the future. After the fullness of the Gentiles, God will sovereignly save the nation. This occurs in connection with the Tribulation judgments that purge the rebellious element, the repentance described in Zechariah 12–13 (they look on the One they have pierced), and the establishment of the kingdom promised in the Old Testament. MacArthur emphasizes that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable; God has not cast away His people. The church has not replaced Israel or inherited every promise in a purely spiritualized sense. Romans 11 stands as a clear witness that God still has a distinct future for ethnic Israel.

Teachers in the same stream, such as Mike Riccardi, continue to expound the same trajectory: God’s refining judgment on the nation, the future outpouring of the Spirit of grace and supplication, national mourning over the pierced Messiah, and the opening of a fountain for sin and impurity—leading into the restored favor of God toward His ancient people.

These men were not reading a modern system into the text. They were following the temporal markers, the contrast between remnant and fullness, the Old Testament quotations about the Deliverer and the removal of ungodliness from Jacob, and the explicit affirmation that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable.

Why the Postmillennial Dismissal Fails

Many historic postmillennialists themselves expected a future large-scale conversion of the Jewish people as part of the triumph of the gospel before the end. That expectation is itself an eschatological reading of Romans 11. To claim the chapter has “nothing to do with eschatology” is to flatten the “until,” the “fullness,” the “life from the dead,” and the coming of the Deliverer into a purely present description of how individual Jews are saved throughout the age. That reading does not do justice to the mystery Paul discloses or to the climax he anticipates.

Romans 11 is not an optional appendix to Paul’s gospel. It is the apostle’s Spirit-inspired explanation of how God’s faithfulness to ethnic Israel fits within the climax of redemptive history. The partial hardening is temporary. The fullness of the Gentiles has a terminus. Then all Israel will be saved by the same Deliverer who banishes ungodliness from Jacob. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. This is not the injection of a system. It is the plain teaching of the text, confirmed by the careful reading of men who loved the Scriptures and refused to spiritualize away the promises God made to the fathers.

The God who keeps covenant with Israel is the same God who will bring history to its appointed end in the glory of His Son. Romans 11 stands as a luminous testimony to both realities.

My Position on Theonomic Reconstructionism and Postmillennialism

I reject both Theonomic Reconstructionism (Christian Reconstructionism) and postmillennial eschatology. These systems do not align with the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of Christ’s kingdom, the mission of the church, the relationship between the covenants, and the course of this present age. My convictions on these matters are the same as those long held and clearly taught by John MacArthur and others who stand in the same stream of biblical exposition.

The Kingdom of God Is Not of This World

I believe Jesus meant exactly what He said when He told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting” (John 18:36). The kingdom Christ is building is not advanced by political power, cultural dominance, or the reconstruction of civil society according to Mosaic judicial law. As MacArthur has stated:

“Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a quote-unquote quasi-Christian nation, or an atheistic nation, nothing in that nation—politically, socially—has anything to do with the advancement of the Kingdom of God. Because the Kingdom of God is separate from that system.”

I fully agree. The idea that the church’s success is measured by its ability to gain influence or reshape the structures of earthly kingdoms is alien to the New Testament. God is building His church by the Spirit through the preaching of the gospel. The gates of hell will not prevail against it—but that promise is not a guarantee of cultural or political triumph in this age.

The Church’s Mission Is Gospel Proclamation, Not Cultural Reconstruction

I believe the Great Commission is a call to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded. It is not a mandate to take dominion over civil institutions or to impose the judicial laws of old-covenant Israel on modern governments. Theonomic Reconstructionism confuses these categories. It treats the civil case laws given to theocratic Israel as the abiding standard for Gentile nations today. I reject that view.

Old Testament Israel was a unique nation under a unique covenant. The ceremonial and civil aspects of the Mosaic law were bound to that particular administration and have been fulfilled and set aside in Christ. While God’s moral law remains binding and reveals His holy character, the specific judicial penalties and civil structures of Israel are not a blueprint for the church or for modern states. To insist otherwise collapses the distinction between the old covenant people of God and the multinational body of Christ in this age.

Postmillennial Optimism Contradicts Biblical Prophecy

I am a premillennialist. I believe Christ will return before the millennium to establish His kingdom in power and glory, fulfill the unconditional promises made to national Israel, and reign for a thousand years. Postmillennialism expects the opposite: a gradual, progressive Christianization of the world that produces a golden age of righteousness before Christ returns. I find that expectation incompatible with the teaching of Jesus, Paul, and John.

Scripture describes this present age as one that moves toward increasing apostasy, lawlessness, and hostility to the truth. The end of human history is not the church triumphant reigning over the kingdoms of this world. As MacArthur has put it, things are going to get worse, not better, and the hope of the believer is the appearing of Christ, not the success of Christian cultural efforts. He has said plainly:

“We don’t win down here, we lose… You were a postmillennialist, you thought we were just going to go waltzing into the Kingdom if you took over the world? No, we lose here.”

That sobering realism matches what I see in the New Testament and in the world around us.

Faithfulness Until the King Returns

I care deeply about righteousness, justice, and the moral condition of the culture. Believers are called to live as salt and light, to seek the welfare of the cities where God has placed them, and to speak the truth without fear. Civil government is ordained by God to restrain evil and reward good (Romans 13). But the church is not the state, and the state is not the church. Confusing those spheres, or pinning our hope on the reconstruction of society under biblical law, distracts from the primary mission Christ has given us.

My confidence is not in the gradual triumph of Christian influence. My confidence is in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners, and the certain return of the King who will set all things right. Until that day, I am called to preach the Word, make disciples, and remain faithful—regardless of whether the culture around me improves or deteriorates.

This is what I believe. It is the same conviction that John MacArthur and like-minded shepherds have labored to guard and proclaim from the Scriptures for decades. I stand with them.

Why the Reformers Were Not Premillennial Pt.2: A Matter of Battlefield, Not Blindness

One of the more frequent objections raised against historic premillennialism is the simple historical observation that the Protestant Reformers—Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their immediate heirs—were not premillennial. The implication is often left unspoken but clear: if the men who recovered the gospel itself did not recover a future earthly millennium, then perhaps the doctrine is not essential to biblical fidelity. The argument deserves a careful answer.

The Reformers were not neutral observers calmly surveying every doctrine with equal intensity. They were men fighting for the life of the gospel in the furnace of controversy. The central questions of the sixteenth century concerned how a sinner is made right with God, the authority of Scripture over ecclesiastical tradition, the nature of justifying faith, and the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work. On these points they applied extraordinary theological rigor, recovering truths that had been obscured for centuries. On other points that were not the immediate point of conflict, they more often retained the inherited framework of the medieval church, sometimes with only modest modification.

Infant baptism furnishes the clearest parallel. The Reformers retained the practice of baptizing the infant children of believers. They did not arrive at this position by subjecting the relevant New Testament texts to the same exhaustive, Scripture-alone scrutiny they applied to the doctrine of justification. When the Anabaptists challenged infant baptism, the Reformers defended it—sometimes vigorously—but their defense leaned heavily on covenantal continuity arguments inherited from Augustine and the medieval church rather than on a fresh reading of the baptismal passages themselves. In short, baptism was not the primary battlefield. Justification was. Many later advocates of believers’ baptism have therefore concluded that the Reformers simply did not bring the full weight of sola Scriptura to bear on the question. Had they done so with the same intensity they devoted to the recovery of the gospel, the argument runs, they would likely have moved closer to the practice of baptizing only those who profess faith in Christ.

The same dynamic helps explain their eschatology. The dominant eschatological outlook of the late medieval church was Augustinian amillennialism: the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 was understood as the present age of the church, the binding of Satan as the restriction of his power through the preaching of the gospel, and the reign of the saints as a spiritual reign. This framework was not the product of a recent or contested debate; it was the settled inheritance of Western Christianity for nearly a thousand years. The Reformers, already engaged in a life-and-death struggle over the doctrine of salvation, largely received that inheritance and adapted it to their own theological concerns. Some (especially among the later Puritans) developed more optimistic postmillennial expectations, but a consistent, literal premillennialism remained rare among the magisterial Reformers.

This does not mean the Reformers never discussed eschatology. They did. Luther and Calvin both commented on Revelation and the prophetic portions of Scripture. Yet their primary energies were directed elsewhere. The Anabaptist radicals who sometimes held chiliastic (premillennial-leaning) views were frequently associated in the Reformers’ minds with social disorder and theological excess. Premillennialism therefore carried unfortunate associations that made it less attractive as a candidate for careful recovery. In short, eschatology was not the heat of the battle. Justification was.

The parallel with infant baptism is instructive precisely because it is imperfect. The Reformers did write against the Anabaptists on baptism; they did not simply ignore the subject. Yet the intensity, the volume of writing, and the willingness to overturn long-settled practice were markedly greater on the doctrine of justification than on the doctrine of baptism. The same can be said of eschatology. The Reformers were not indifferent to the return of Christ; they longed for it. They simply did not subject the traditional Augustinian reading of the millennium to the same searching, Scripture-alone re-examination they applied to the doctrine of how sinners are justified.

Here the Reformation principle of semper reformanda becomes especially relevant. The fuller expression is Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei — “the church reformed, always being reformed according to the Word of God.” The Reformers themselves understood that the recovery of the gospel in the sixteenth century was not the final word on every doctrine. They knew they were finite men fighting on a particular battlefield under particular historical pressures. Their own writings and the later Reformed tradition repeatedly insisted that the church must remain open to further correction and clarification from Scripture. Semper reformanda was not a slogan for endless novelty; it was a confession that even the best theology of any generation remains incomplete and must continue to be tested and refined by the Word of God.

Applied to eschatology, the principle works like this: the Reformers recovered the heart of the gospel with extraordinary clarity and power. In the process, they largely retained the Augustinian amillennial framework they inherited, because that was not the primary point of conflict. Semper reformanda means we are not obligated to treat their eschatological conclusions as the final, unreformable word. If later generations, reading the same Scriptures with the same commitment to sola Scriptura, become convinced that a future, literal reign of Christ better accounts for the biblical data, then the Reformation principle itself gives them the freedom — and the responsibility — to say so.

If this historical observation is correct, then the fact that the Reformers were not premillennial carries less weight as an argument against the doctrine than is often supposed. Their failure to recover a future earthly reign of Christ does not prove that such a reign is absent from Scripture any more than their retention of infant baptism proves that the New Testament requires the baptism of infants. In both cases, the more accurate conclusion is that the Reformers’ reforming energy was concentrated where the gospel itself was most directly threatened. Other doctrines, though important, received less thorough revision.

This is not a claim that the Reformers were careless or that their eschatology is worthless. Their writings remain rich with insight into the present reign of Christ, the victory of the gospel, and the final judgment. It is simply a recognition that even the most faithful of theological movements operate under the constraints of their historical moment. The heat of the controversy shapes the depth of the reform. On the doctrine of justification the Reformers shone with particular brilliance. On the doctrine of the millennium they largely walked in the light they had received from Augustine. Those who believe the New Testament teaches a future, literal reign of Christ upon the earth need not be embarrassed by that historical fact. They may instead give thanks that the same principle of sola Scriptura that recovered the gospel continues to call every generation—including our own—to examine all things by the Word of God.

Jeff Durbin’s Posthumous Critique of John MacArthur: A Mischaracterization of the Great Commission

Jeff Durbin recently used his podcast platform to criticize John MacArthur’s premillennial eschatology, pitting his own postmillennial view against MacArthur’s and effectively equating MacArthur’s statement that “we lose down here” with a denial or light treatment of the Great Commission. MacArthur’s point was simple and biblical: the church does not progressively take over the world and usher in the kingdom through cultural and political dominance before Christ’s return. He was rejecting an overly optimistic reading that expects everything to get better until the church hands a Christianized world to the returning King. Scripture instead warns that evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse (2 Timothy 3:13), that lawlessness will increase, and that the last days will be difficult times.

That is not a denial of the Great Commission. It is a sober reading of the trajectory of this present age.

What MacArthur Actually Taught

MacArthur never claimed the gospel is powerless or that evangelism is futile. He taught, lived, and modeled the opposite for more than fifty-six years. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18–20) is a command to make disciples of all the nations—baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded—under the authority of the risen Lord who promises His presence until the end of the age. Its success is measured by the gathering of the elect from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, not by the Christianization of every civil order or the elimination of opposition before Christ returns.

Scripture holds both realities together: the gospel advances, and the world system remains hostile and grows worse. Jesus said the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come (Matthew 24:14). He also said His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), that the world will hate His disciples as it hated Him (John 15:18–20), and that believers are sojourners whose citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20; 1 Peter 2:11). Revelation portrays escalating rebellion before the visible return and reign of Christ. The church conquers by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, even unto death—not by seizing the levers of global power in this age.

MacArthur’s “we lose down here” was directed against the idea that the church’s mission includes (or will achieve) cultural conquest as the path to the kingdom. It was never a claim that the Great Commission is a pipe dream.

Fruit Matters

Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. John MacArthur pastored Grace Community Church for over half a century. Through Grace to You, his teaching has reached tens of millions monthly via radio, free sermon downloads numbering in the hundreds of millions, the MacArthur Study Bible (millions of copies), The Master’s Seminary (thousands of graduates serving worldwide), and missions work spanning dozens of countries. That is sustained, multi-generational, global proclamation of the gospel and the whole counsel of God.

Jeff Durbin and Apologia have engaged in real work—street evangelism, pro-life advocacy, cult outreach, and media content. That is not nothing. But the scale, longevity, depth of systematic exposition, pastoral training pipeline, and documented global reach are not comparable. To suggest that the man whose ministry produced this kind of fruit somehow treated the Great Commission lightly is simply not credible. MacArthur’s realism about the world’s trajectory never produced passivity; it produced urgency and decades of faithful labor.

Who, then, has more clearly obeyed the Master in the Great Commission?

An Attack on Character

There are good brothers who hold a postmillennial view. I disagree with it on hermeneutical grounds. Disagreement on the timing and nature of the kingdom is one thing. Publicly framing a brother’s eschatology as practical unbelief in Christ’s final command is another. That is an attack on MacArthur’s character and the integrity of his life’s work.

Scripture requires that honor be given where honor is due (Romans 13:7; 1 Timothy 5:17) and that accusations against an elder be handled carefully (1 Timothy 5:19). MacArthur is now with the Lord. To climb out and level this kind of charge after his death—while having previously acknowledged personal benefit from his ministry—does not reflect the humility or brotherly restraint the New Testament calls for. Jeff Durbin has much to be ashamed of in this attack on MacArthur’s character.

Faithful men can differ on the millennium without impugning one another’s commitment to the Master’s command. When that line is crossed, the one who crosses it bears responsibility before God. The Great Commission still stands: go and make disciples of all the nations. John MacArthur spent a lifetime doing exactly that. That is not light regard for the Commission. It is obedience to it.

Why the Reformers Were Not Premillennial

Priority, Inheritance, and the Call for Consistency

A common question arises when studying the Reformation: Why did the great Reformers—men who recovered the pure gospel of justification by faith alone—largely reject a premillennial understanding of the end times? John MacArthur has observed that their focus was rightly fixed on the doctrines of salvation rather than eschatology. The Roman Catholic Church of their day was predominantly amillennial, shaped by Augustine’s later views, and the Reformers were not primarily fighting battles over the millennium. Eschatology simply was not the urgent front line.

That assessment is historically sound. Yet it also opens a further question: If the Reformers had applied the same principles they used so powerfully in justification, the authority of Scripture, and the sovereignty of God in election to the prophetic portions of Scripture, would they not have been led toward a premillennial hope—one that takes seriously God’s irrevocable promises to Israel and a future earthly reign of Christ?

The Historical Priority of the Gospel

The sixteenth-century Reformers faced a church that had obscured the heart of the gospel. The central issues were the authority of Scripture versus the authority of the church, the nature of justification (by faith alone or by faith plus works and sacramental cooperation), the priesthood of all believers, and the true nature of the church. Luther’s rediscovery of “the just shall live by faith” and Calvin’s systematic exposition of sovereign grace were matters of eternal life and death.

In that context, eschatology remained secondary. The Reformers inherited the dominant amillennial framework that had held sway since Augustine. They saw no pressing need to reopen questions that were not at the center of Rome’s errors on salvation. Calvin famously wrote commentaries on nearly every book of the Bible—except Revelation. When they did address the millennium, they typically rejected a future earthly kingdom as a “Jewish dream” or a childish fiction, partly reacting against radical Anabaptist groups that mixed millennial expectations with social upheaval.

Confessional statements reflect this stance. The Augsburg Confession and the Second Helvetic Confession explicitly reject the idea of a future golden age on earth before the final judgment. Their concern was to protect the finished work of Christ and the present spiritual reign of the risen Lord from anything that might seem to diminish it or reopen the door to speculative excess.

What They Did Affirm—and What They Left Underdeveloped

The Reformers were not indifferent to the return of Christ. They firmly believed in His visible second coming, the resurrection of the dead, final judgment, and the eternal state. Their amillennialism interpreted the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 as a symbolic description of the present church age, during which Christ reigns spiritually and Satan’s power is restrained in a limited sense.

This view was consistent with the Augustinian tradition they received. It was not, however, the product of the same rigorous, text-driven recovery they applied to justification. On soteriology they returned to the plain sense of Romans, Galatians, and the rest of the New Testament with fresh eyes. On prophecy they largely retained the spiritualizing approach that had long treated Old Testament kingdom promises as fulfilled exclusively in the church.

The Consistency of Sovereign Grace

Here the deeper point emerges. The Reformers championed the absolute sovereignty of God in the salvation of His elect. Election is unconditional, unilateral, and irrevocable. God’s purpose stands. His gifts and calling are without repentance (Romans 11:29).

If that is true for the elect individuals who make up the church, it is equally true for the elect nation to whom God made irrevocable covenants. The Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants contain land, throne, and national restoration promises that have never been fully realized in history. Paul himself, in the same chapter that celebrates sovereign election, insists that God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew and that a future salvation of “all Israel” awaits after the fullness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:1–2, 25–27).

A consistent application of the Reformers’ own principles—God’s faithfulness to His word, the reliability of His electing purpose, and a hermeneutic that takes the text at face value unless the context demands otherwise—points toward a future fulfillment of those promises in a restored Israel under the reign of the Messiah. That is the heart of a premillennial expectation: Christ returns before the thousand years, establishes His kingdom on earth, and fulfills what the prophets and the covenants declared.

MacArthur has put it bluntly: if one truly believes in sovereign election, one should expect God to keep His word to Israel as surely as He keeps it to the church. The same God who cannot fail His elect people cannot fail His elect nation. Premillennialism is simply the eschatological outworking of that conviction.

Honoring the Reformers While Pressing Further

None of this diminishes the Reformers’ monumental achievement. They recovered the gospel. They restored the authority of Scripture. They taught the church again that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Those recoveries remain the foundation.

At the same time, the recovery of biblical truth is an ongoing work of the Spirit in the church. The Reformers themselves did not claim to have settled every doctrine with finality. In the centuries since, deeper study of the prophetic Scriptures, a clearer distinction between Israel and the church without denying the unity of God’s people in Christ, and a more consistent grammatical-historical reading of the Old Testament promises have led many who share the Reformers’ commitment to sovereign grace to a premillennial conclusion.

The reason the Reformers were not premillennial is largely a matter of historical priority and inherited framework. The reason many who stand in their theological tradition today are premillennial is a matter of pressing the same principles of divine faithfulness and scriptural clarity into the whole counsel of God—including the promises that still await their appointed fulfillment when the King returns.