I’ve read dozens of Dr. Macs books. I’ve shaken his hand and told him what his ministry means to me. If I have written an essay denouncing Macarthur, where is it? I may not be a fan, but I am grateful and respectful of him and all he’s done.

I have pointed out two issues with Macarthur over the years- both theological and I am far from alone. His critique of evangelicals in Ashamed of the Gospel and many other books is dead on target.

If the Macarthur fan club would stop dividing the world into people who are part of their team and those who are against them they might sound like adults for a change. EVERYONE can be criticized…..it’s not a sin or a crime to do so. But this has never been an anti Macarthur blog. As for those who are his fans…it’s a different story.

If you’d abandon your MacArthur dislike for a few seconds for onece and think about it, I think you’d find that MacArthur would probably agree with about 99% of what you said in your writeup. I am a charter member of the MacArthur,Spurgeon and Us club, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote.

It is Dr. Macarthur’s fan club on the web who are the most dedicated, sarcastic, merciless opponents of anyone who isn’t doing things exactly like Dr. Macarthur. Read Fide-o sometime. How do we get from Driscoll to Macarthur? Both value the Gospel, but Driscoll’s book Confessions of a Reformation Rev would horrify all of these guys: the methods, the humor, the sexual innuendo, the smoking, the attitude toward worship, etc. Yes, Driscoll comes out strong on the big points, but the entire missional/emerging church is the target of post after bloody post from the “John Macarthur/Charles Spurgeon and Us” club.

I appreciate the link, but after Dr. Macarthur himself, his internet fan base is not a friend to this discussion.

Go to this web page to read some good commentary about this topic of truth vs. technique:
http://theresurgence.com/john_macarthur_jr_1994-10_truth_vs_technique

You are correct. “Would NOT” is what I meant to say.

Permit me a momentary grovel — you teach English, don’t you? Aggghhh…

“You know, the difference between the humiliation of chosen suffering and the humiliation of being a clown are fairly different, don’t you think?”

I don’t see how.

When you think about it … if you’re an immortal, eternal being who was “with Him in the beginning” … becoming a human is a far bigger step down than wearing a clown suit. A human suit IS a clown suit to God, I suspect.

“Assigning to Jesus the motive of “anything to save one” assumes that God is glorified by anything that saves one, and that’s not true. ”

On the contrary, I would say that God is glorified whenever a human puts his faith — saving faith — in Jesus Christ. And I think that, the more contortions God has to go through to see a person saved — or realize their calling, or whatever it is when a person decides to prove out their calling and election — the more it glorifies him. Why? Because it shows that, as much as he values his dignity (and dignity IS a virtue), that his royal dignity bears a distinct second place to his fierce love.

The harder the fish struggles, the better the fish story.

The more contortions, tricks, and games the fisherman has to play, the more glory to the fisherman.

So yes … if dressing up as a clown functions in some way to assist the elect in the — consummation? — of their destiny … then it reflects to God’s glory, because it shows his love for his people and the guile of the fisherman.

“If Jesus would choose humiliation via entertainment to save one, why did he refuse to do miracles in Mark 8? ”

First of all, if you change “humiliation via entertainment” to “humiliation via public spectacle” … then that is EXACTLY what Jesus chose for his ministry.

He did not choose humiliation by public spectacle to save one .. he chose humiliation by public spectacle to save ALL. To be forced to march through the streets of Jerusalem, to the mocking and jeers of soldiers, pharisees, guards … then to be lifted up as a public example to all the world.

As towards why he didn’t perform a miracle in Mark 8 … That is an EXTREMELY good question.

My first off-the-cuff answer is: I don’t believe Jesus refused miracles because they were “entertainment” or incompatible with his dignity. When you think about it, the spectacle of a miracle-worker — of the dead being raised, the blind seeing, people coming out of wheelchairs — would be “entertainment” in it’s own right. Why should Jesus do these things publicly at all? Why not simply do them privately and secretly, as he did the wine in Cana? No, these things were done publicly to draw a crowd and authenticate his ministry, which they did.

My GUESS is that his reaction was prompted by the attitude of the Pharisees in some way. Recall that in Mark 8 the request for a miracle occurred immediately after his feeding of the four thousand, one of his most public miracles.

My GUESS is that these hard-hearted men — having observed his healings et al — were asking for no good reason. Further, I suspect they were men of the sort he spoke of in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus — the brothers of the rich man who, being deaf to Moses and the Prophets, would also be dead to the voice of one raised from the dead (Luke 16:31).

If these men were indeed blind, deaf, and hard that way, a miracle would be a waste of energy on his part. It would accomplish nothing. There was no advantage to him in granting their request. So he didn’t.

In OTHER places, he did indeed provide signs from heaven (John 12:28-29), but note that even when a very Voice from Heaven spoke, many of the crowd couldn’t comprehend what it was. The sign was wasted on them.

It could be that the people demanding a sign from him was entirely from that latter category — hard-hearted men who wouldn’t see it for what it was. Therefore he denounced them as a “wicked and adulterous generation” and refused to perform a sign which would do neither them nor him any good. If anything, it would make things worse for them, for they would be responsible for not heeding the signs they had seen. Witness his comments that Capernaum would have a worse lot than Sodom (Matthew 11:21-24).

Other times, when he was dealing with tender hearted audiences, he said “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders, “you will never believe.” (John 4:48).

For the pliable and the tenderhearted, Jesus would grant miracles to aid in their belief. Like Thomas.

To the hardhearted, such as those pharisees, he refused. As a mercy to them.

That is my *best guess*. I make no claims it is the right answer.

Many thanks for making me think, sir.

——
Respectfully,

Brian P.

Is that sentence correct?

I assume you meant to say “wouldn’t,” but i don’t want to put words in your mouth.

You know, the difference between the humiliation of chosen suffering and the humiliation of being a clown are fairly different, don’t you think? Assigning to Jesus the motive of “anything to save one” assumes that God is glorified by anything that saves one, and that’s not true. Jesus constantly says that he is doing exactly what the Father has told him to do that both he and the Father might be glorified.

If Jesus would choose humiliation via entertainment to save one, why did he refuse to do miracles in Mark 8?

Your comment response was :

“Is there a problem with the sentence starting “Therefore…?” ”

Well, aside from the obvious punctuation and grammatical errors, I don’t think so.

The only thing I can get from your question is that “humiliating, shameful, and undignified” = “sin”.

Clearly, Jesus did not think so. Remember that he would allow children to approach him — something no “dignified” teacher would do. He would also touch Lepers and speak to prostitutes — in a culture where some people went to the extreme of closing their eyes when a normal woman would step into view, much less a prostitute!

So scratch “undignified” from the “list of stuff Jesus wouldn’t do”.

Clearly, Jesus does not believe undignified behavior is sinful behavior in all circumstances.

“Shameful” behavior? While what he did was not shameful by our culture’s standards, many of these things would be shameful in his. Eating with tax collectors and prostitutes was considered quite shameful by any “respectable” person in Jesus’ day. Yet he ate with them and drank with them.

So scratch “shameful” — culturally shameful, that is, not shameful in God’s eyes — from the list of stuff Jesus wouldn’t do.

“Humiliating”? What could be more humiliating than stepping down from a throne of eternal glory to be a carpenter’s son? Oh, right … being nailed up to a stick like a criminal, having first been flogged and mocked by the grown-up version of schoolyard bullies.

So scratch “humiliating” from the “list of stuff Jesus wouldn’t do”.

So going back to the original point — you give the example that you couldn’t imagine Jesus driving a tank to make a point. I disagree — I can’t imagine that the Jesus who allowed himself to be incarnated as a Jewish carpenter, and allowed himself to be crucified, despite having legions of angels at his call — I can’t see such a person, who has already given everything, stopping at a tank. After the crucifixion, it’s not like he’s got any dignity left anyway.

So if a tank is what it takes, a tank is what he’ll use.

So: Humiliating, shameful, and undignified behavior is not necessarily sinful behavior.

So, unless you’re pointing out some butchery of the English language on my part, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Please have pity on dense ol’ me :).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I can picture Jesus having a party, praying, teaching, telling jokes, healing, crying, turning over tables and many other things. I can’t picture Jesus bringing driving a tank into a room to make a point or wearing one of Ed Young’s shirts.”

———
Well, I have a problem with this, because there’s precious little I can’t picture Jesus doing.

After all, Jesus came to Earth not just to die, but to be humiliated. The entire journey of his time on earth, from the birth in a stable to the wrapping in swaddling clothes to the washing his disciple’s feet like a menial to the crucifixion itself was one long exercise in humiliation. He “made himself nothing” in the most literal sense … all to save the ones he loved.

Therefore I can conceive of nothing humiliating, shameful, or indignified short of actual sin Jesus would do to reach and save the lost. If he did those things on our behalf, how can we do less?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Great post Michael.