John MacArthur - Putting Himself on Report with LEAVEN
People wake up: John MacArthur among numerous documented issues listed in notes below believes and teaches Leaven in Matthew 13:13 in a "positive light - something good" - and uses it to teach the exact OPPOSITE of what the scripture is telling us. He then applies it directly to the church for today and in this age. 1
Why is this a big deal? John is putting himself on report as someone who believes the church - people in the Church building operations and the operational mission of these organizations - in these later days of this fallen world will increase, grow in number size and strength more and more in their mission to expand the gospel to the lost. Matthew 13:33 KJV The Parable of the Leaven. He doesn't realize it but I believe God has allowed him to indict himself as the "exact conditions" Jesus warned would be the last days in the first 4 parables of Matthew 13 KJV.
This is not only very poor hermeneutics of not using context, grammar, and scripture to interpret scripture, It is strong irrefutable proof that John is a KINGDOM BUILDER also known as a DOMINIONIST. 2 .
John is also putting himself on report to believe his mission of building his church organization and his stand against government tyranny - however noble I believe this may be- IS NOT the mission of the Church and it NEVER was. This is also a very stark warning to show us that John is one that is of the mind set to be as Dr. Larkin states - building the kingdom of the AntiChrist. 3
John also has placed himself on report for using truth and mixing in the error of leaven in his teaching which is a definite sign of the last days. We see the first 4 parables of Matthew 13 staring us right in our faces. These are signs surely of the end of this age.
Regarding the study on Leaven in the Bible and Kingdom NOW Dominion Theology I urge you to read Dr. Andy Woods' outstanding book listed in notes below. Specific to the Parable of Leaven in his book The Coming Kingdom pages 118-214 for a scholar review of why John MacArthur is so far off course and to expose a far deeper agenda into the deception he is pouring out.
Disclaimer: Although Dr, Woods does a brilliant work of exposing false teaching of Dominion Theology he gets himself in trouble regarding Luke 17 because of his reference using the corrupted NASB bible translation in some of his work. One issue of a perverted bible translations leavens the whole lump. Galatians 5:9 KJV See why Bible Translations do matter. 4 . Subsequently, it is imperative we be good bereans to take each detail we read and match it with scripture - the final authority of God's word from the King James Bible.
Even if the reader remains on the fence regarding the proper rendering of Matthew 13:13 - ask yourself this question. How can leaven that is used as an evil agent throughout the Bible including the entire 8 parables of Matthew 13, all of a sudden change to something good beginning in verse 13?
Do not be deceived. To think that John MacArthur is a champion of the church in its stand against tyranny, is a mistake. Yes, I also applaud the way he stands up against the Liberal Left onslaught against the church. But look deeper - in my study below we can see the Hegelian Dialectic is in full operation by John Mac and his NEOCON Right Wing. 5.
Disclaimer: Although I'm a conservative I do not believe the Church has any business jumping into politics and the political machinery. This is another subject I've addressed thoroughly in links below, but just read Paul's warning for Christians not to "entangle ourselves with the affairs of this life" - we MUST STRIVE LAWFULLY 2 Timothy 2:4,5 KJV.
These brick and Mortar 501C3 Building Operations run by apostate trained CEOs calling themselves Pastors are NOT biblical and are in fact building the kingdom of the Anti Christ. Amen! See Note 6.
Referenced: John MacArthur, Matthew 8-15, The Macarthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1987), 372-374 . See Notes below from Dr. Woods book "The Coming Kingdom". See full quote and study from Dr. Woods in additional notes below
MANN - LEAVEN
Dominion Theology Exposed - The Coming Kingdom by Dr. Andy Woods
The consequences of Kingdom Now DOMINION Theology
Larkin, Clarence. THE GREATEST BOOK ON "DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH" IN THE WORLD by Clarence Larkin 1918,
Dr. Clarence Larkin Rightly Dividing the Word 1920
Dr. Clarence Larkin The Second Coming of Christ 1918
The Hegelian Dialectic CHURCH MEMBERSHIP LOYALTY TEST RED FLAG
John MacArthur the false teacher and his powerful trickery. DOMINION THEOLOGY and The 2 majors: Circumventing the BLOOD OF CHRIST and teaching it's okay to take the mark for those who are left behind and other alarming issues:
John MacArthur exposed in this Manna - Leaven Blog
. 6. Why today's Brick and Mortar 501C3 Operations run by Apostate Trained CEOs called Pastors are NOT Biblical
Begin quote from The Coming Kingdom. Parable of the Leaven:
“The following The Parable of the Leaven Christ gave the Parable of the Leaven in Matthew 13:33. This verse says, “He spoke another parable to them, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.’” Perhaps more than any of the other parables found in Matthew 13, this parable is used by kingdom now theologians to teach that the kingdom is a present, spiritual reality. They interpret the yeast as the progress of the kingdom in the present world. Unfortunately numerous commentators miss the clear import of Christ’s teaching in the Parable of the Leaven (Matt. 13:33) by interpreting the leaven as something good rather than bad. Notice popular pastor John MacArthur’s interpretation of Matthew 13:33. The first point is that small things can have great influence. . . . The second point . . . is that the influence is positive. . . . When the kingdom of heaven is faithfully reflected in the lives of believers, its influence in the world is both pervasive and positive. The life of Christ within believers is spiritual and moral leavening in the world. . . . To the average person of Jesus’ day, Jew or Gentile, there is no evidence that leaven carried any connotation of evil or corruption. . . . To take this leaven as representing evil that permeates the kingdom is to twist the obvious meaning and construction of words.13 Elsewhere, MacArthur notes: Here the kingdom is pictured as yeast, multiplying quietly and permeating all that it contacts. The lesson is the same as the parable of the mustard seed. Some interpreters suggested since leaven is nearly always a symbol of evil in Scripture. . . . It must carry that connotation here as well. They make the leaven some evil influence inside the kingdom. But that twists Jesus’ actual words and violates the context, in which Jesus is repeatedly describing the kingdom itself as their pervading influence.14 Concerning MacArthur’s interpretation, George Zeller appropriately notes: MacArthur’s interpretation is not far away from that of the postmillennial reconstructionist who also would understand the leaven as being used in a good sense and indicating the growth of the kingdom of heaven by means of the penetrating power of the gospel ultimately leading to the conversion of the world.15 Yet, when the yeast is properly understood as something pernicious rather than something that is good, an exact opposite interpretation is provided. Pink provides seven clues for properly interpreting the Parable of the Leaven. The popular interpretation of this parable regards the “leaven” as representing the Gospel and its power, the “woman” the Church. Here are the words of Dr. John Gill: “Leaven is everywhere else used in a bad sense . . . here it seems to be taken in a good sense, and the Gospel to be compared unto it.” The “woman,” he tells us, is “the church” or the ministers of the Gospel. . . . 1. If the popular view is correct then, in this chapter, Christ flatly contradicts Himself. What He has said in the first three parables is dead against world-conversion or even world-reformation by means of Gospel preaching. . . . 2. The post-millennial interpretation of this parable is flatly contradicted by what we are told in verses 11, 35 of Matthew 13. There we learn that these parables are “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” “things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” . . . the Gospel was not an unrevealed secret in O. T. times. Galatians 3:8 declares that the Gospel was “preached unto Abraham.” . . . 3. If the “leaven” represents the Gospel and the “meal” the human race, or, as Dr. Gill teaches, God’s elect in their natural condition then the figure which Christ here employed is a faulty one. And this in three different respects. First, in the way it works. How does “leaven” act? Why, it is simply placed in meal, and then it works of itself! That is all: just place it there, leave it alone, and it is bound to leaven the whole lump. But is that the way the Gospel works? Certainly not. Multitudes have received the Gospel, but it has had no effect upon them! . . . Second, in the actor here mentioned. It is a “woman” who places the leaven in the meal. But the Lord Jesus Christ has not committed His Gospel into the hands of women. There were none among the twelve, nor among the seventy whom he chose and sent forth. The preaching of the Gospel is a man’s job. . . . Third, in the effects it produces. When leaven is placed into meal it causes it to swell, it puffs it up! Is that what the Gospel does when it enters human hearts? No indeed. It produces the very opposite effect. It humbles, it abases. 4. The popular interpretation is contradicted by the plain facts of history and by present-day experience. . . . The Gospel has now been preached for nineteen centuries, yet not a single nation or state, no, nor even city, town or village, has been completely evangelized—let alone won to Christ! If the popular view is the correct one, then the Gospel is a colossal and tragic failure. 5. To make the “leaven” a figure of the Gospel and its power, of that which is good, is to contradict every other passage in Scripture where this figure is used. Christ was speaking to a Jewish audience, and with their knowledge of the O. T. Scriptures none of them would ever dream that He had reference to something that was good. With the Jews “leaven” was ever a figure of evil. The first time that “leaven,” in its negative form, occurs in the Bible is in Genesis 19:3, where we are told that Lot “did bake un-leavened bread” for the angels, and that “they did eat.” No doubt leavened bread was a common commodity in the wicked city of Sodom. . . . In Exodus 12 it will be found that Jehovah commanded the Israelites to rigidly purge their houses of all “leaven” at the Passover season. Why was this if “leaven” is a type of that which is good? Exodus 34:25 tells us that God prohibited any “leaven” from accompanying offerings of blood. Leviticus 2:11 informs us that “leaven” was also excluded from every offering of the Lord made by fire. This parable in Matthew 13 is not the only occasion when the Lord Jesus employed this figure. How did He use it elsewhere? In Matthew 16:11 we find Him saying to the disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” There, it is plainly a figure of that which is evil. So in Luke 12:1 He said, “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy.” Would He then deliberately confuse His disciples by using it as the figure of good in Matthew 13? The Holy Spirit has also used this same figure through the apostle Paul. In what manner? In 1 Corinthians 5:6, 7 we read, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump.” Would they be told to “purge out” that which was good? The last passage in the N. T. in which “leaven” is mentioned is Galatians 5:7–9. Note there three things: first, it is called “a persuasion”—something which exerts a powerful and moving influence. Second, it hinders men “from obeying the truth.” Third, it is expressly said to be “not from Him which calleth you.” Thus, that which is a thing of fermentation—really, incipient putrefaction—is, throughout Scripture, uniformly a figure of corruption—evil. It is remarkable that the word “leaven” occurs just thirteen times in the N. T., a number always associated with evil and the work of Satan. 6. Let us now consider the “three measures of meal.” Post-millennarians say that they represent the human race among whom the Gospel is working. If so, the “meal” is a figure of that which is evil. The human race is fallen, sinful, depraved; “the whole world lies in the Wicked one” (1 John 5:19). . . . “And Abram hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth” (Gen. 18:6). Did Abraham prepare for the Lord and His angels food out of that which symbolized evil? Note what is said in 1 Kings 17:14–16. God does not feed His servants on that which speaks of evil! Now where does “meal” for bread come from? Any child can answer: not from evil tares, but from good wheat. It is the product of the good Seed. Then that which is good, wholesome, nutritious, pure, can never be a figure of fallen and corrupt humanity. In Genesis 18:6 the “three measures of meal” are a figure of Christ’s person, just as the “tender calf” in verse 7 which was killed and dressed prefigured His work. The meal is a type of Him who is the Corn of wheat (John 12:24) and the Bread of life. And thus in the language of N. T. symbolry the “meal” stands for the doctrine of Christ. 7. The action of the “woman” in our parable exposes the error of the common interpretation. She “took,” not “received;” and hid the leaven in the meal. Is this the way in which the servants of God preach His Gospel? Is the evangel something to be whispered in secret? Does God bid His servants act stealthily? No. The Lord has said to them, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetop” (Matthew 11:27). Writing to the Corinthians, and describing the character of his own ministry, the apostle Paul said, “We faint not, but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 4:2). But in our parable, the woman is acting dishonestly and deceitfully: she stealthily introduced a foreign and corrupting element into the meal. Her object was to effect its deterioration. If the reader will turn to Leviticus 2:11 he will find that this “woman” was doing the very thing which the Word of God forbade her; and he will also observe that she left out the oil, which was the very thing the Scriptures enjoined! . . . The “leaven” symbolizes the corrupting of God’s truth by the introduction of evil doctrine—compare Matthew 16:12.16 Pink’s understanding of the leaven working its way through the dough as representing something evil rather than something good is consistent with the interpretation provided by other respected scholars. As previously noted, both Walvoord and Toussaint interpret the leaven in a negative sense. Thus, far from teaching the growth of the kingdom, the Parable of the Leaven, like the previous Parable of the Mustard Seed, is actually a parable concerning the progress of evil in the present age.”