Postmillennialism - a theology of hope? On the contrary, a theology of hope misplaced

Postmillennialism is the doctrine that says that, before his second coming, Christ will establish clear outward supremacy amongst the nations, for a prolonged period of time (likely to be centuries at least). Not all people will be converted, but you will be able to say that "the nations have been converted"; the nations in general (or perhaps all of them) will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, and will order themselves to live under his rule, and will willingly and gladly effectively abolish competing ideologies from public expression. In other words, the gospel's visible triumph is of the sort that means it comes to outwardly dominate over all other alternative beliefs, clearly and conspicuously, throughout the earth.

Postmillennial theologians routinely describe the attractions of their belief in terms of it being a theology of "hope" or "optimism"; a theology that means that we can live in this world with hope/expectation, and know that our labour is not in vain in the Lord. Other views are said to be pessimistic, depressing, lacking hope, and draining their adherents of motivation to serve Christ today.

One - in my view, fatal - problem with this description is that the New Testament clearly teaches Christians that they can, indeed must, live with hope, and know that their labour is not in vain in the Lord, upon different grounds. We look forwards with joy and expectation, because Christ has conquered sin and death, sat down at God's right hand, rules over all things, and is coming again in glory. That is to say, the New Testament explicitly provides other grounds for hope, and portrays those other grounds as entirely sufficient for the outlook that postmillennial theologians say that we need their doctrine in order to arrive at.

Or in other words again, in the New Testament outlook, we live with hope because of the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection, and return. Throughout, the accomplishments of Christ through his cross and empty tomb, through which the dark powers have been defeated, are declared by Christ's messengers to his people as the grounds of their joy and hope; and the culmination of these things is in his second coming to which we look forward with eagerness, as the night will soon be past and the dawn is at hand.

Inasmuch as postmillennial theologians tell us that it is the further announcement (if we, for the sake of argument, grant that this announcement is made somewhere) of the certainty of Christ's clear victory over opposing ideologies consisting in the (vast?) majority of people abandoning them that we find joy, hope, and reason to work for him, they have an irresolvable problem, which is as follows. Either the reasons that the apostles everywhere emphasised were a mistaken emphasis, or they were insufficient reasons for our rejoicing, or the extra reasons provided by postmillennialism are unnecessary.

i.e. We have the horns of a dilemma. Upon one horn, the constant New Testament emphasis upon hope, joy and victory in Christ's resurrection and return was apparently not enough. Any and all passages in which this reason is given need further supplementing by other reasons, and the apostles were mistaken to leave out those reasons in those passages. Christ's ascension and return are, apparently, only enough to rejoice in if you also supply the missing "in between" that during the period from one to another, the proportion of those who will voluntarily submit to him will also reach the threshold that postmillennialism requires (it is not enough that he has a representative number that cumulatively, across the ages, when assembled from across all their different tribes and countries, is the vast Revelation 7 multitude). Or alternatively, upon the other horn, it was enough, meaning that in fact we already have a "theology of hope" without having to accept the beliefs of postmillennialism. Postmillennialism is either false or redundant. Inasfar as you base your joy upon belief about what percentage will be converted before Christ's return, you fail to base your joy upon a foundation that Paul, Peter et. al. already saw as fully sufficient, and you either miss out, or you hold that they were incorrect to do so.

It is my view that a comprehensive study of what excited and motivated the apostles in their preaching and teaching reveals that postmillennialism answers a question that didn't interest them, and which they didn't teach anyone to ask, and which they would have highlighted as a mistaken question if someone had decided to. "Will the greater part of humanity be saved?" belongs to the category of things that God has chosen not to reveal and which are not our business. It is not for us to know the numbers and seasons which God has set in his own sovereignty. On the other hand, certain other spiritual realities, the dawning of the last times through the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, were entirely transformative for the outlook of the apostles and those whom they taught. Those things are revealed, and make all the difference. They make all the difference: they are what constitute the grounds of our certain hope of glory. Anyone who teaches that we must work in a certain way because God has revealed what proportion of humanity will in future recognise him during a substantial period of time teaches people to place their hope somewhere other than where we're meant to put it, and damages the spiritual lives of the hearers. He teaches them to not make his primary way of looking at reality to be the "two realms" scheme of the New Testament (the old realm of Satan, sin and death, and the new realm, which has already invaded history, of Christ, resurrection and life).

False motivations - ones which didn't interest the authoritative declarers of Jesus Christ and his will for his people at all, and which teach people to look at history and space-time reality using a different fundamental lens to that of the New Testament - are not good things, and are not indifferent things. It's not OK to say "oh, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it were true?" We are not called to be wise above what is revealed. It is not wonderful to decide to self-consciously adopt such a viewpoint as ones fundamental outlook on reality. God didn't make a mistake with the viewpoint that he told us to adopt. But here is another fatal problem for advocates of post-millennialism. If they can't say "you should adopt this set of beliefs, because it will give you hope and optimism for the future" (since it's clear from the Bible that we're already meant to have that for other reasons), then what can they say? What now is the marketing point to get people excited?

Further recommended reading; "Paul and the Hope of Glory" - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B085XNC5QS?psc=1 . It's not about post-millennialism, which gets a tiny mention at the very end. As I'm trying to say, that is the point.

Bodily searches

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/17/trans-women-uk-railways-strip-searched-male-officers

Trans women arrested on Britain’s railways will in future be strip-searched by male officers in an updated policy

i.e. People with male bodies (i.e., men) will in future have bodily searches carried out by men.

This is how the Guardian chooses to put it. For some reason they preferred not to also say the fact that it much more relevant to the great majority of people (though female sex abusers do exist): in future, women will not have to endure bodily searches carried out by men (or in Guardian-speak, "trans-men will in future be strip-searched by women"). Your wife and your daughters will not be subject to a man carrying out a bodily search. I wonder why the Guardian chose to direct us in a different direction?

The British Transport Police said same-sex searches in custody would be conducted “in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee” under updated guidance for public bodies.

Which makes sense, because a bodily search was something to do with your body, rather than whatever you believed your "internal sense of gender identity" was.

N.B. saying your "biological birth sex" is a way of trying to make something simple sound complicated. In this case, it sounds like that practice beloved of erring officialdom: obfuscating with unnecessary jargon in order to pretend that you previously weren't in gross dereliction of your duty. Your "biological birth sex" can just be called your "sex", with zero meaning either lost or gained.

Under the force’s previous policy, officers had been told that anyone in custody with a gender recognition certificate would be searched by an officer matching a detainee’s acquired gender

i.e. Previously, physical bodily searches were carried out as if they weren't something primarily to do with your body, but primarily to do with your non-physical inner beliefs about your internal "gender". So, men who claimed that they had an inner "female" orientation, could, on that basis, carry out bodily searches of females.

That policy could make no sense to anybody (because there's no sense in it). It was merely the desire of rabid ideologues who prefer their ideas above the real-world consequences of those ideas. (i.e. They're rabid ideologues, who lack humanity).

The world has plenty of such rabid ideologues, of course. There are all kinds of people suffering all over the world because people prefer their ideas to the flesh-and-blood human beings that their ideas hurt.

So the question then becomes - who in the British Transport Police is going to resign for failing to perform their duty of preferring real people over socially-preferred but actually harmful ideas?

The same question, of course, is now in play (following yesterday's court ruling) for many people in many domains and organisations. "Oops, it just slipped my mind for a moment that girl's bathrooms, women's changing rooms, women's refuges, etc., exist because of the differences of physical bodies, because of physical reality, rather than because of their users' abstract ideas - a subtle mistake anyone could easily make!" It's not really, is it?

The origins of Easter

The Daily Telegraph reports this, concerning a booklet on Easter produced by English Heritage:

Under the heading The Origins of Easter, it states: “Did you know Easter started as a celebration of spring? Long ago, people welcomed warmer days and new life by honouring the goddess Eostre, who gave Easter its name!”

It adds: “Fun Fact: Some traditions for Eostre included dancing around bonfires and decorating homes with flowers.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/12/english-heritage-claims-easter-isnt-originally-christian/

With C S Lewis' Professor Digby, I find myself shaking my head, and wondering what they do teach them in schools these days.

The above could go straight into a textbook of lexical fallacies, confusing completely the lexical origins of a word, and the actual referent of the word as used. i.e. it slides over between and confuses where the word came from, and what people are talking about when they deploy it.

When people say "Easter", they're almost always referring to the time of the year when Christians observe the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and that celebration itself. That's what they're talking about; thus, that's what the word means.

Along similar lines, when someone says to me "Monday", they're referring to the first day of the working week. It's generally the day on which they go back to work or school, or begin whatever their regular activities again after the weekend. They're not implicitly informing me that they worship the Moon or any other heavenly bodies. The fact that long, long ago people named these day in reference to the Moon can tell us something about those people; it doesn't tell us anything about anything that is being talked about if someone today says "I don't like Mondays!".

English Heritage, thus, have confused what "Easter" is with the possible long-distant origins of the word in the English language. In French, it is called "Pâcques", a word whose origins go back to the Hebrew Passover. Does this mean that "Easter" in England and France are fundamentally two different things? Once you cross the Channel, Easter "is" something else entirely?

So, the thing is what the word is used to refer to. Where the word came from is something else, and no doubt interesting. People all other the world re-deploy existing words, after swapping out the content. Sometimes they do this deliberately (because they want to supplant, replace and ultimately eradicate the memory of the former content; for example, the swapping-out of the meaning of words like "tolerance" and "diversity" during my life-time); sometimes it is done without any particular intent. It may be done quickly, or gradually. You could say that on our current trajectory, for a lot of people, "Easter" is "that time when the kids get a break from school because of the traditional Christian calendar, we give and eat Easter Eggs, and generally feel thankful that winter is gone and spring is here". Yes: in practice, quite not too dissimilar to what English Heritage says the festival that 8th-century Bede refers to was about ... though, it seems English Heritage there also may be projecting back their own beliefs. What Bede actually said is less secular: the Anglo-Saxon pagans of a period before his held religious feasts in the honour of the goddess Eostre. Bede is the only source we have that makes any reference to this; we do not know what sources he himself was drawing upon, and what other information there is about these feasts that would impact our understanding.

There is, of course, no real connection between pagan festivals to West Germanic gods observed by Anglo Saxons, and the festival of Easter as observed traditionally by Christians; there is no sense in which the events of an empty tomb in the near east and the preaching of a risen Messiah by disciples of Jesus in the first century and following, and the traditional beliefs about gods of parts of Western Europe, have anything to do with eachother, except in that the people of Europe in general decided to stop paying any respect to the latter, and instead give all respect to the former. i.e. The only connection is a decision to consciously carry out an entire replacement with something obviously different. So, "Easter" has no more to do with Germanic pagan gods than a Protestant family giving eachother "Christmas" presents means that they have decided that their salvation requires participation in the Catholic Mass after all.

All in all, we learn a few things about English Heritage from this, but essentially nothing about the origins of the thing that people call "Easter", as it's been present in our country's traditions and culture for the last millennium and a half or so.

Jesus, the heavenly bridegroom

It is well known to Christians that in the Scriptures, Jesus the Messiah is revealed to us as the bridegroom of his church. It is a theme well attested to in the prophets (e.g. Ezekiel 16, Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 2:2), Psalms (Psalm 45), gospels (Matthew 9:15, John 3:29), letters (Ephesians 5:22-33, 2 Corinthians 10:2), and Revelation (chapter 21 - and note the contrast with the great whore of chapter 18).

I think, though, that I'd either overlooked or forgotten the presence of this theme in John chapter 2, in the account of the first miracle at the wedding at Cana. Jesus is, of course, not the literal bridegroom at his wedding; he, his disciples and his mother were invited guests. His time has not yet come (v4). When Mary urges him to do something about the lack of wine, the reader should understand that this is one of the tasks of the bridegroom. Jesus' time had not yet come to reveal himself fully; and yet, it was already time to reveal himself to his disciples, those who trusted in him. He is a partially hidden bridegroom. The Jewish era brought wine, but it had run out. It was wine in finite and static water-pots (which we may contrast with the flowing waters of the Spirit proceeding from all believers, in John chapter 7). The Old Covenant was wearing out, but its promise remained unfulfilled, leaving people spiritually thirsty. But Jesus fills the water-pots with wine - the true wine, the best wine, and they are satisfied.

The wine was taken to the master of the feast, who was astonished by it. He did not know where it had come from. This is also a repeated theme of John's gospel; people do not know where Jesus has come from, but the reader knows, because this is the very first thing that he has been told in the first verse: he is himself God, who is eternally at the Father's side, and has been made flesh. The master of the feast calls the bridegroom, because it was the bridegroom who brings in the wine. But of course, the master of the feast has identified the wrong bridegroom. The one who has actually produced this wine which was the very best, and yet brought at last, was not the man he had called; that was Jesus. Jesus is the true bridegroom. Some know his identity (the servants and disciples) but others are in his very presence and see his miracles, and yet do not know who is amongst them.

This was the beginning of signs, and Jesus manifested his glory. But he wasn't merely helping people to have a good time; he was not only declaring that the time of Old Covenant water-pots had ended; he was also revealing that he was the hidden bridegroom, ready to feast his guests. The glory revealed includes the glory of being the true bridegroom.

In the very next scene, he goes to the temple - his "Father's house" (v16). Of course he does; for as Isaac brought his long-sought-after bride into his parent's tent, so Jesus must cleanse the divine house to make it a fit place for his bride to be taken home to. The false whore of Babylon must be driven out so that the chosen bride can be brought in. The temple must be cleansed so that God's people can dwell in the very holiest place in God's presence (a theme fulfilled finally at the end of Revelation).

I'm sure there's much more to be seen; I was studying a related passage rather than this one and so that is all I currently have. I hope will be able to return to it. But I can't help noticing too (and this was prompted by hearing a sermon on the fetching of Rebekah for Isaac recently) that there are at least 4 places in Scripture where a bride is found at a well of water:

• The first is Rebekah; we see that the bride is chosen and provided in God's foreordination and sovereignty.
• Then there is Rachel; in this account, the emphasis is that the bride is the kin of Jacob; they are of like nature. The deceiver (Laban) seeks to keep Jacob from his true bride.
• Thirdly, Zipporah: Moses comes far, from a strange land, to marry her. He is an outcast and enemy of the land's evil and tyrannical ruler, but is destined to bring redemption to God's people in that land. He takes up home in a far land and there he marries his bride. (He is, however, a "husband of blood" to Zipporah; the Old Covenant ministration if experienced without faith in the Christ that it foreshadowed ultimately brings death, not life - that had to await the one to come).
• Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, which is the clear fulfilment of all of the above foreshadowings. She has had several other husbands, but none of them were the true husband who has now come to find her. What is in Christ is not more static water that must be laboriously fetched, time after time, but living water, which flows joyously forever. And it is not the blood of another that has to be spilt to establish or maintain the covenant; he freely gives his own.

It seems to me, though, that in chapter 2, John has reported a further partial accomplishment of this motif. At the wedding in Cana, Jesus is again found by the wells of water, and is revealed as the bridegroom; however, he is not recognised. He reveals his glory: but the principal actors at the wedding fail to see him (though the lowly servants do). He is unrecognised at a Jewish wedding; but later, a Samaritan woman (and village) recognise him. As at the end of the book, where the net is cast out "on the other side" to bring in a great catch, so it is here, with John's revelations of the heavenly bridegroom. Those who should see don't see; to those who were far off and lowly, he is graciously revealed. Some do not know who he is and where he has come from; they can only pose astonished questions and marvel without understanding. But some, without any right to such blessings, do know; they believe, embrace him, and receive life. Their bridegroom has come and found them where they were humbly and endlessly toiling for a finite supply of water; and he gives them eternal wine.

"Brothers, we are not political pundits"

This chimes so well with points I've blogged about on and off recently: https://clearlyreformed.org/brothers-we-are-not-political-pundits/. Very good article.

"Brothers, we can be pundits or we can be pastors, but we likely cannot be both." I don't know why the "likely" was included in that closing line, since the article preceding it made an excellent case that we just can't, full stop. The same man cannot both preach "please let me be completely clear that until you have Christ, you are lost and ruined, forever, and this matters more than the whole world; you need to understand that the kingdom of God has arrived in Jesus Christ, and transcends all the things you are attached to in this passing world" and also be someone known for responding to the 24-hour news cycle.

Anyone attempting to serve two masters will serve Christ badly, and quite often not be anything like as good as he thinks he is in the activity in which he's moonlighting too. Pastors and preachers are ambassadors. They must have the spirit expressed when Martyn Lloyd-Jones quoted Nehemiah when people told him that his oratorical gifts would be put to great use in parliament: "I am doing a great work; I cannot come down."

Learning by serving

If you want to understand better, then serve more, and focus your thoughts, energies and desires on those you're serving.

Big books can contain a great deal of profound wisdom. But our ability to absorb and rightly deploy any wisdom is seriously limited by unwillingness to hand over our lives for others and for God.

Without the desire to love God and love man, wisdom becomes knowledge which only "puffs up" (1 Corinthians 8:1). The raw materials are fed in, but they go into a machine whose innards are twisted, perverted - they are arranged not to produce the true good fruits, but something else, something lesser, something driven by an idolatry.

Jesus said "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority" (John 7:17). Failure here is why there are many who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7) - whether in the absolute sense, or in a relative sense, Christians stunted in their growth.

The Internet bears witness that there are many who are working hard at many things, but that it all centres around that vile idol, self. They know a lot: but they know very little.

If you want your children to be able to navigate this troubled world with true, godly wisdom, then don't just teach them. Don't just show them an example. Make service a vital part of their curriculum.

The modern world is very much against us here; it treats children and young people as those who must just receive. All must be made convenient for them to pursue education, and anything that hinders this is very much secondary, if not completely optional. Service can come later, later, always later. But once they're learned this, they won't forget it. (I'm busy with my important degree, I'm trying to impress at my first job, I need to get a deposit, small children use up all of our energy, I'm now making it into the higher levels, etc. etc.).

Authentic service is also a great antidote against being led astray by heresy, errors and simple dead-ends. Notice in Ephesians 6:11-14 how inseparable working and serving together in life is with avoiding "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine". Love leads on to more knowledge and discernment (Philippians 1:9). A good heart sees things more clearly, and results in greater light flooding the whole being (Matthew 5:22). "Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life" (Proverbs 4:23). If our hearts are directed towards the love of God and the love of our unevangelised or suffering fellow-man, then this will help to keep us in the light. On the contrary, when the desires are elsewhere, then disease will ravage the whole body.

Is not failure here - failure to pay attention to sincerely doing the Master's will, practically, prioritising his priorities, in the tasks he's given us, out of love to the Master - behind so much trouble in the churches? One man has a doctrine he thinks he is so right about, another believes he sees some other issue so clearly, and perhaps both have some true and important things in what they say.... and yet, there's also a sense in the air that something important is not quite right. The machinery isn't going as it should, there is oil missing, and some parts are giving off noxious smells even if we can't quite describe exactly what they are.

Again: the master has given us work to do. There's much more sweetness in serving in some worthy causing alongside a brother or sister who has their heart in the right place, and yet hasn't understood a lot of things (and has misunderstood some others) in the Christian scheme of doctrine. There's no need to fret about them. If you keep serving with the desire to lift up Christ and help those who are in need, then you'll both draw nearer to Christ, and gain clearer views of his truth, and sweep away some of the mistakes. Progress will happen, because the way is open for light to come in. But on the other hand, you can be alongside brothers who are so, so doctrinally correct, and yet have a strong sense that something is still very wrong. The desire to do something costly for Christ just isn't there. Joy in service has departed. Some of the motions are still being moved through. But it's hard, hard, to stir people up to much of it. Why? Because the doctrines aren't being loved for the right reason. They're not in the service of crucifying sin that we might live with Christ, killing self so that we can serve others in his name. They're loved for some other cause - intellectual pride, one-up-man-ship, as tools to beat others down with, things to make us feel superior to those stupid worldlings with their Woke nonsense, etcetera, etcetera.

Brothers and sisters, if you want to know Jesus better, he's told us how. "Follow me". "Take up your cross". Find those whom you can serve in his name, inside and outside of the church. Seek to serve and thereby give a testimony to the marvellous love of your Saviour. You'll then find that so many things can be seen so much more clearly.

As the divine son, Jesus knew everything. As the incarnate one, Jesus had a perfect understanding of all the knowledge that he had, unclouded by any sin whatsoever. Driven by this perfect knowledge, he gave his life for others. We only really know anything to the extent that it teaches us to do the same thing.

In which I offer you my own profound and insightful analysis upon the election of Donald Trump

Following on from here.

Before the election of Donald Trump, American Christians, and Western Christians in general, were in the position of having sufficient freedom to preach the gospel, preach the whole counsel of God, reach out to the unconverted, raise their children according to the teaching of the Scriptures, demonstrate the reality of God's love through ministries of mercy to the needy, and generally do whatever they see as best in order to carry on their Master's business whilst they await his return.

Now that Donald Trump has been elected as US president,  American Christians, and Western Christians in general, are in the position of having sufficient freedom to preach the gospel, preach the whole counsel of God, reach out to the unconverted, raise their children according to the teaching of the Scriptures, and demonstrate the reality of God's love through ministries of mercy to the needy, and generally do whatever they see as best in order to carry on their Master's business whilst they await his return.

Now get back to work.

(The above is not an argument that the political sphere is irrelevant. Rather, it's an argument for the things it says).

God's temple: the best place to hide your idols

Stephen McAlpine nails it: https://stephenmcalpine.com/why-the-temple-is-the-best-place-to-hide-an-idol/

The killer quote in the article: “A [ministry] leader whose heart has been captured by other things doesn’t forsake ministry to pursue other things; he uses ministry position, power, authority and trust to get those things.”

Once, a missionary in Kenya observed to me that a number of people (thankfully, there are many who are not in this category) go to the mission field, or enter Christian ministry in general, because it gives them the opportunity to satisfy sinful and proud cravings that they'd never be allowed to get away with in the secular world, or in a bigger pond. Being lifted up high, away from scrutiny, controlling the information that goes to other places about yourself and your brilliance, controlling the mechanisms of accountability, and having open green fields in which to do things you couldn't do working alongside and under others - this offers such opportunities for the person who loves or is ensnared by something that they shouldn't.

The conservative evangelical church in the UK, and particularly Anglican conservative evangelicals, is being rocked (again) by scandal caused by appalling wickedness amongst well-known leaders, and the questions "who knew this?" and "for how long?", "when there were signs, why does it again look like the response was a cover-up, and how has it taken so long to come to light?" and, most damningly, "why did this have to be exposed by people outside the church, when the church is told to love justice, exercise repentance, and live in the light of the day of judgment when everything we declined to do and should have done will be revealed?"

Though there need to be specific answers for the specific cases, there's one big factor that is present in scandal after scandal. A lot of people love their reputation, position, influence, platform, conferences, networks, book endorsements, etcetera, at least as much as they love Jesus, and there are few signs we can see that this is changing. "Big cheese disease" seems to be present in every age: and thus, all the more reason why it needs dealing with.

But when did you last hear a prominent leader lay out, in detail, why evangelical celebrity cults and celebrity cultures are wicked, and a huge problem, and what in particular needs to be done to resist them and their evil influence? "Judgement must begin first at the household of God." "Physician, heal thyself." "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

If you're not pointing out that the Emperor lacks clothes, is it because you yourself are still hoping to receive the Empire's favours? When you read the gospels and see how Christ acted faced with wickedness in God's temple, can you conclude that your silence is Christ-likeness, or is it actually something else?

Lord, may I live no longer than you give me grace to walk every day in repentance and serve in a way that gives honour, only, to your Son. May I see his glory, and in that light, my unworthiness. May he increase, and I decrease, every day. Amen.

John MacArthur: I beg your pardon?

On one of his ministry websites, John MacArthur tells you that he is - calls himself - "the World's Premier Expository Preacher" - https://macarthurcenter.org/the-expositor/ .

And yes, he does call himself that. It's his centre, in his name, and every statement it publishes, especially if it's prominent, is thus endorsed as his statement until he retracts it as erroneous. And that page has said so since at least June 2021, and so for at least 3 and a half years:

Why am I drawing your attention to this? Are we not meant to hide things in our brethren that are embarrassing or dishonourable? On the contrary, those who publicly represent Christ must expect scrutiny, and invite it; Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:1, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ", and in Philippians 3:17, "Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern."

John MacArthur wants your attention to be drawn to this fact, so that you can sign up to learn from him. That's why he's put it in big type, at the top a main page of an eponymous ministry websites.

What to make of this?

For one thing, Jesus Christ forbids his servants to receive titles from men; how much more does he forbid men to award them to themselves?

Matthew 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Plainly this prohibition cannot be made absolute; it does not extend to titles that recognise and are used legitimately in connection with an office; Christ's apostles, inspired by his Spirit, used the title "apostle of Jesus Christ" to introduced themselves. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:10) told the Corinthians, again under inspiration, that he had worked harder than all the other apostles. But then, there, there were only a small handful of other apostles. Evidently, Paul said it knowing it to be objectively true - but let's also note the full context of what he had to say:

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.  

As far as I know, though, there is no office of "world's premier Bible expositor" that Jesus Christ appointed for someone to take up. Out of interest, when did MacArthur inherit this position, and who was his immediate predecessor?

Again, Paul said: "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ", 1 Corinthians 11, thereby drawing attention to his own example, which therefore cannot be absolutely wrong to do. But can you imagine Paul adding "and I am the world's premier imitator of Jesus Christ", even though that might actually have been true, given what we know of Paul's deep sufferings and what God, by the Holy Spirit, had to say about those sufferings?

You can make of John MacArthur awarding himself the title "the World's Premier Expository Preacher" what you will. I was quite sure that it wasn't me, so I'm certainly not disputing it on those grounds! Quite how MacArthur determined that he was the world's foremost explainer of the Bible, we are not told. We know that he is strongly against the concept of private revelations. We suppose he determined it some other way. However he determined it, he did think it was important to let us know.

Since you now know that John MacArthur has concluded that he is the world's premier expounder of God's word to man, and that he needed to tell you this, are you now helped to take him as seriously as such an important person should be taken?