Dr. Couch, why is it that there are such divergent views about the
Bible, such as between premillennialists and amillennialists? Both camps
seem to have pretty smart people in them.
The answer is easy. For the most part, the amillennial/allegorical
Covenant Reformed guys come to the text with a preconceived systematic
theology. I believe my systematic theology must come from my exegesis
and my careful observations of what the text says. I do not give you a
biblical answer as a “dispensational” answer (though the Bible is
dispensational). I give you an answer to the text from a literal, normal
system of interpretation—starting from Genesis all the way through
Revelation. The Covenant guys foist an interpretative system
(preconceived Covenant allegorical) over and upon the Bible. For
example, often in their OT interpretation, Israel is the church. And the
kingdom is allegorized to mean the church. I don’t have to do that!
Israel means Israel, and the church means the church!
Of course the allegorical guys have the right to be wrong! And
indeed, they are!
I appreciate much that Reformed allegorist Hendriksen writes in his
commentary series, but on the rapture of the church in 1 Thessalonians
4:13-18 he says, “Premillennialists, according to which Christ comes
first for his saints, and seven years later with his saints. The coming
is one; but it is a coming both with and for his saints” (p. 94). This
is a cop out! It cannot be both. The two prepositions carry different
thoughts. Hendriksen is determined to get rid of the rapture that is so
plainly taught in this passage.
Amillennialist and allegorist A. T. Robertson does a “both and”. He
calls this Thessalonian passage a rapture passage but then says that
Paul is not clear on his meaning. He writes, “This rapture of the saints
(both risen and changed) is a glorious climax to Paul’s argument of
consolation. This is the outcome, to be forever with the Lord, whether
with a return to earth or with an immediate departure for heaven Paul
does not say” (pp. 32-33).
How can Robertson say that? Paul does not address the issue of
Christ’s return to earth here to judge. The catching up to heaven is
something unique for those “in Jesus,” or those “in Christ.”
On 1 Thessalonians 5:9, when Paul says church saints are not destined
“for wrath,” Hendriksen makes this wrath the wrath of the final
judgment. But the context is about the “destruction which will come upon
them suddenly like birth pangs” (v. 3). This is a quote from Jeremiah
30 where the prophet is writing about the wrath of the tribulation that
will come upon Israel and the world. The “birth pangs” are not about the
final judgment of the lost! Hendriksen cops out and violates the
context and the discussion that is under way in the passage.
I stay with the context! Most of the allegorical guys do not because
they have a preconceived agenda. They are Replacement in their
eschatology. They replace the church with Israel. In their view God is
finished with the Jewish people!
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch
