Dr. Couch, many amillennialists use Galatians 6:16 to prove that the church, present day believers, are part of Israel. Or, that we are now Israel. How do we answer them?
ANSWER: We answer them by thorough analysis and observation of the Scriptures. We use good hermeneutics and grammar, and history, to let the Bible speak for itself. The amills are poor scholars. They have lousy interpretative skills, if any at all!
"Israel" is a direct reference to the Jewish people. Israel is a reference to Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes. Jacob means to "grasp the heel." He was the supplanter who held back his twin brother when they were coming out of the womb. This made him the first born with all the first born privileges. Israel means "to strive with God," or the Angel of Jehovah as recorded in Genesis 32:28.
All of this has to do with Israel's history and it's not about the church! The church is never called Israel. However, we are the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith. "By faith" is the key. I am not a natural Israelite. Paul writes of those of us who are "of faith who are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). He speaks of those by promise "by faith in Jesus Christ" (v. 22). "Justified by faith" (v. 24). "You belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise" (v. 29).
Paul closes then with "And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God" (6:16). "Those who walk by this rule" would be the Gentiles and "upon them" would be Jews. "Israel" is never used to describe Gentiles! Paul went from one subject to another subject. "Those" and the "upon Israel." Thus, Abraham is the father of all who believe (Rom. 4:11). He is my spiritual father but not my natural father! But I am never called "Israel."
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Dates of the Death and Resurrection of Christ
Dr. Couch, is it right to say that Christ was crucified on Nisan 14 (April) and resurrected on Sunday, Nisan 16?
ANSWER: Yes, the best scholarship uses these dates, and I believe they are accurate. But the Lord is not "legalistic" holding our feet to the fire as to the exactness of these dates. The dates are not as important as the fact of His death and resurrection! Don't major on the minors but major on the majors! Christ's death is what gives us our salvation; the resurrection proves that we are justified before God because, His resurrection proves that the Lord is finished with our sins. That is the most important and urgent doctrinal issue we cling to.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: Yes, the best scholarship uses these dates, and I believe they are accurate. But the Lord is not "legalistic" holding our feet to the fire as to the exactness of these dates. The dates are not as important as the fact of His death and resurrection! Don't major on the minors but major on the majors! Christ's death is what gives us our salvation; the resurrection proves that we are justified before God because, His resurrection proves that the Lord is finished with our sins. That is the most important and urgent doctrinal issue we cling to.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Women Teachers
Dr. Couch, I see that from time to time you receive criticism from younger women about your views on women teaching men, or teaching mixed groups. I know of some very talented women teachers who are teaching men. How do you answer?
ANSWER: It does not matter what they are doing. It does not matter how much talent they have as teachers. It matters what Paul, the inspired apostle, says. 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is as clear as it can get! Women have wonderful abilities and ministries given them by the Holy Spirit but to teach over men, or to have pastoral authority, these roles are not given to women. As a principle, men are more objective than women and less emotional. This is how the Lord has constructed the differences between the sexes. In Paul's argument that women are not to "teach or exercise authority over a men." He adds the reason why. He writes "The woman (Eve) being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). "Quite deceived" is one Greek word. She was REALLY deceived by Satan, the Greek text notes! Adam was simply deceived, though he was responsible for the family and the culpability was greater against him because he was the first created.
I find that a lot of younger Christian women get upset about this issue because they have been brainwashed by the culture. "No matter what the Bible says, we want it our way!" And, they do not hold the inspired Scripture with its full authority. They are not willing to do what it says—to obey its principles.
So, often I take a hit but I sleep well at night because I want to obey what God has said!
Verse 15 tells us how the woman is to be elevated by the Lord. She is "saved" or protected through child bearing, that is, by having children that gives her important responsibilities and that keeps her in check. But too, she must continue in strong faith, love, and sanctity, with self-restraint. These last values mentioned here will be greatly honored by the Lord. They are spiritual values that allow the woman even to go before the man in spirituality. We see this in women. They are more spiritual when they follow God's patterns and don't try to be men, in the affairs of the culture and in the affairs of the church. But it's hard for women to see this. And that proves Paul's point. Women are more emotional about this discussion. They do not relate objectively to what Paul is saying. They get upset quickly about what the Lord is teaching the church. This is not Dr. Couch theology. It is Pauline theology!
The great Greek scholar A. T. Robertson notes: "Paul has in mind that child-bearing, not public teaching, is the peculiar function of woman with a glory and dignity all its own." Women today do not see the greatness of pouring themselves into their children. But what a privilege in creating spiritually the next generation!
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: It does not matter what they are doing. It does not matter how much talent they have as teachers. It matters what Paul, the inspired apostle, says. 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is as clear as it can get! Women have wonderful abilities and ministries given them by the Holy Spirit but to teach over men, or to have pastoral authority, these roles are not given to women. As a principle, men are more objective than women and less emotional. This is how the Lord has constructed the differences between the sexes. In Paul's argument that women are not to "teach or exercise authority over a men." He adds the reason why. He writes "The woman (Eve) being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). "Quite deceived" is one Greek word. She was REALLY deceived by Satan, the Greek text notes! Adam was simply deceived, though he was responsible for the family and the culpability was greater against him because he was the first created.
I find that a lot of younger Christian women get upset about this issue because they have been brainwashed by the culture. "No matter what the Bible says, we want it our way!" And, they do not hold the inspired Scripture with its full authority. They are not willing to do what it says—to obey its principles.
So, often I take a hit but I sleep well at night because I want to obey what God has said!
Verse 15 tells us how the woman is to be elevated by the Lord. She is "saved" or protected through child bearing, that is, by having children that gives her important responsibilities and that keeps her in check. But too, she must continue in strong faith, love, and sanctity, with self-restraint. These last values mentioned here will be greatly honored by the Lord. They are spiritual values that allow the woman even to go before the man in spirituality. We see this in women. They are more spiritual when they follow God's patterns and don't try to be men, in the affairs of the culture and in the affairs of the church. But it's hard for women to see this. And that proves Paul's point. Women are more emotional about this discussion. They do not relate objectively to what Paul is saying. They get upset quickly about what the Lord is teaching the church. This is not Dr. Couch theology. It is Pauline theology!
The great Greek scholar A. T. Robertson notes: "Paul has in mind that child-bearing, not public teaching, is the peculiar function of woman with a glory and dignity all its own." Women today do not see the greatness of pouring themselves into their children. But what a privilege in creating spiritually the next generation!
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Gospel's of Peter and Paul
Dr. Couch, was the message of Peter and Paul the same about salvation to the believer?
ANSWER: I can't believe this question. Don't ask me. Please read the letters of Peter! That will give you the answer. I'd love to know from what heretical position such a question is coming. Mercy, mercy, mercy!
But here we go:
"Caused us to be born again" 1 Pet. 1:3.
"A living hope through the resurrection" 1 Pet. 1:3.
"To obtain an inheritance which will not fade away" 1 Pet. 1:4.
"The proof of your faith" 1 Pet. 1:7.
"You believe in Him" 1 Pet. 1:8.
"The outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls" 1 Pet.1:9.
"This salvation the prophets prophesied"1 Pet. 1:10.
"Who preached the gospel to you"1 Pet. 1:12.
"The grace to be brought to you, the revelation of Jesus Christ"1 Pet. 1:13.
"You were not redeemed with ..."1 Pet. 1:18.
"You were redeemed with the precious blood of a lamb, the blood of Christ" 1 Pet. 1:19.
"Who through Him are believers in God"1 Pet. 1:21.
"You have in obedience to the truth purified your souls"1 Pet. 1:22.
"You have been born again" 1 Pet. 1:23.
I think I'll stop here! This is only the 1st chapter of 1 Peter!
Thanks for asking,
Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: I can't believe this question. Don't ask me. Please read the letters of Peter! That will give you the answer. I'd love to know from what heretical position such a question is coming. Mercy, mercy, mercy!
But here we go:
"Caused us to be born again" 1 Pet. 1:3.
"A living hope through the resurrection" 1 Pet. 1:3.
"To obtain an inheritance which will not fade away" 1 Pet. 1:4.
"The proof of your faith" 1 Pet. 1:7.
"You believe in Him" 1 Pet. 1:8.
"The outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls" 1 Pet.1:9.
"This salvation the prophets prophesied"1 Pet. 1:10.
"Who preached the gospel to you"1 Pet. 1:12.
"The grace to be brought to you, the revelation of Jesus Christ"1 Pet. 1:13.
"You were not redeemed with ..."1 Pet. 1:18.
"You were redeemed with the precious blood of a lamb, the blood of Christ" 1 Pet. 1:19.
"Who through Him are believers in God"1 Pet. 1:21.
"You have in obedience to the truth purified your souls"1 Pet. 1:22.
"You have been born again" 1 Pet. 1:23.
I think I'll stop here! This is only the 1st chapter of 1 Peter!
Thanks for asking,
Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Great Tribulation
Dr. Couch, I have been told that the second half of the 70th week of Daniel is actually the Great Tribulation. I am confused because there is tribulation occurring between chapter 6 and the vials, though it seems to be the wrath of Satan. Also, many used the Westcott & Hort text. Should we trust scholars who don't seem to be "born again"?
ANSWER: I will handle your last question first. Scholars who are not born again can be just as objective with factual material as one who is born again. Being born again gives us a spiritual understanding of things but not necessarily an "up" on objective, factual things. Every week I use my Hebrew Grammars, Jewish commentaries, and Jewish lexicons, all written by men who are not born again. So, what is your point? I can learn objective facts from them just as well as from Christians. You have clearly been misled by someone!
I am not clear as to what your point is on what you first wrote. So I will simply address the issue of the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21) is not a technical expression but a description of the fact that the tribulation will get worse as it goes along. I think those who try to make it a technical expression are wrong. In the Greek text there is no article before the adjective "megale" (great). The article "a" has been supplied but there is no "the." Great Tribulation then is indefinite. Many scholars miss this but since I have had more graduate Greek than anyone, I didn't miss this!
Walvoord calls the Great Tribulation a "specific period of time," while this is true, in that things get worse at the last half of the tribulation, it still should not be considered a technical period.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch(4/11)
ANSWER: I will handle your last question first. Scholars who are not born again can be just as objective with factual material as one who is born again. Being born again gives us a spiritual understanding of things but not necessarily an "up" on objective, factual things. Every week I use my Hebrew Grammars, Jewish commentaries, and Jewish lexicons, all written by men who are not born again. So, what is your point? I can learn objective facts from them just as well as from Christians. You have clearly been misled by someone!
I am not clear as to what your point is on what you first wrote. So I will simply address the issue of the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21) is not a technical expression but a description of the fact that the tribulation will get worse as it goes along. I think those who try to make it a technical expression are wrong. In the Greek text there is no article before the adjective "megale" (great). The article "a" has been supplied but there is no "the." Great Tribulation then is indefinite. Many scholars miss this but since I have had more graduate Greek than anyone, I didn't miss this!
Walvoord calls the Great Tribulation a "specific period of time," while this is true, in that things get worse at the last half of the tribulation, it still should not be considered a technical period.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch(4/11)
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Revelation 5:10
Dr. Couch, Revelation 5:10 says in the Westcott & Hort "Thou hast made THEM a kingdom and priests ..." whereas the KJV says "us." Which is right?
ANSWER: I do not know an evangelical strong Greek seminary in the country that does not hold to the Westcott & Hort text. And this includes the well-known A. T. Robertson whom you refer to. As one who has taught graduate Greek for over forty years, and who has had more graduate Greek courses (much of it taught by the great Dr. S. Lewis Johnson) than anyone you will ever have known, the passage should indeed read "made them ..." as the correct Greek reading.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary agrees with "them" as well as the scholar Ellicott in his commentary. The respected Alford in his masterful commentary also uses "them." I know of no scholar worth his salt who would agree with "us." The strongest blow comes from Robert Thomas who in his commentary writes: "The 'us' rests upon such weak MS evidence, however, that it is not worthy of serious consideration." All of the above evidence ends the discussion!
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch
ANSWER: I do not know an evangelical strong Greek seminary in the country that does not hold to the Westcott & Hort text. And this includes the well-known A. T. Robertson whom you refer to. As one who has taught graduate Greek for over forty years, and who has had more graduate Greek courses (much of it taught by the great Dr. S. Lewis Johnson) than anyone you will ever have known, the passage should indeed read "made them ..." as the correct Greek reading.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary agrees with "them" as well as the scholar Ellicott in his commentary. The respected Alford in his masterful commentary also uses "them." I know of no scholar worth his salt who would agree with "us." The strongest blow comes from Robert Thomas who in his commentary writes: "The 'us' rests upon such weak MS evidence, however, that it is not worthy of serious consideration." All of the above evidence ends the discussion!
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Ask Dr. Couch
Dr. Couch, I have been told that the second half of the 70th week of Daniel is actually the Great Tribulation. I am confused because there is tribulation occurring between chapter 6 and the vials, though it seems to be the wrath of Satan. Also, many used the Westcott & Hort text. Should we trust scholars who don't seem to be "born again"?
ANSWER: I will handle your last question first. Scholars who are not born again can be just as objective with factual material as one who is born again. Being born again gives us a spiritual understanding of things but not necessarily an "up" on objective, factual things. Every week I use my Hebrew Grammars, Jewish commentaries, and Jewish lexicons, all written by men who are not born again. So, what is your point? I can learn objective facts from them just as well as from Christians. You have clearly been misled by someone!
I am not clear as to what your point is on what you first wrote. So I will simply address the issue of the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21) is not a technical expression but a description of the fact that the tribulation will get worse as it goes along. I think those who try to make it a technical expression are wrong. In the Greek text there is no article before the adjective "megale" (great). The article "a" has been supplied but there is no "the." Great Tribulation then is indefinite. Many scholars miss this but since I have had more graduate Greek than anyone, I didn't miss this!
Walvoord calls the Great Tribulation a "specific period of time," while this is true, in that things get worse at the last half of the tribulation, it still should not be considered a technical period.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch(4/11)
ANSWER: I will handle your last question first. Scholars who are not born again can be just as objective with factual material as one who is born again. Being born again gives us a spiritual understanding of things but not necessarily an "up" on objective, factual things. Every week I use my Hebrew Grammars, Jewish commentaries, and Jewish lexicons, all written by men who are not born again. So, what is your point? I can learn objective facts from them just as well as from Christians. You have clearly been misled by someone!
I am not clear as to what your point is on what you first wrote. So I will simply address the issue of the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21) is not a technical expression but a description of the fact that the tribulation will get worse as it goes along. I think those who try to make it a technical expression are wrong. In the Greek text there is no article before the adjective "megale" (great). The article "a" has been supplied but there is no "the." Great Tribulation then is indefinite. Many scholars miss this but since I have had more graduate Greek than anyone, I didn't miss this!
Walvoord calls the Great Tribulation a "specific period of time," while this is true, in that things get worse at the last half of the tribulation, it still should not be considered a technical period.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch(4/11)
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What Books are for the Church Age
Dr. Couch, I read a book by a Douglas Stauffer who says that the books of Hebrews, James through Jude, and Revelation, do not contain any message for the church age. Only Paul's epistles are for this age. What do you say?
ANSWER: Nothing. This argument is too stupid to even answer. Read them for yourself. Don't listen to fools and folks who can't read very well! It amazes me how openly ignorant people can be. And it amazes me how they can attract attention and cause the average person to listen up to what they say. Just read the books.
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: Nothing. This argument is too stupid to even answer. Read them for yourself. Don't listen to fools and folks who can't read very well! It amazes me how openly ignorant people can be. And it amazes me how they can attract attention and cause the average person to listen up to what they say. Just read the books.
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Islam or Rome?
Dr. Couch, I have heard some say that Daniel's fourth empire is Islam not Rome. They quoted Justin Martyr and Iranaeus to prove their point. What do you say?
ANSWER: Some rabbinical scholars say the same thing. They say the fourth empire in Daniel 7:7 is not Rome but the powers of present Islam. They actually say it is Edom which represents the Arabs of present day Jordan, and thus pictures the Islamic peoples. This is not an uncommon view for some Jewish interpreters.
However, the more common view is that Rome is represented here and not Islam. The reason is that this is a united "beast" and not a conglomeration of Arabic peoples gathered under the umbrella of Islam. Verse 23 says "The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom (not a collection of peoples) on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it." This beast is also made up of "ten horns and ten kings" (v. 24).
The description of this kingdom is spelled out in 2:40-43. This does not seem to be a religious movement such as Islam but a distinct nation. While the word "Rome" is not in any of the passages, all evidence leads to the great power that follows Greece, the Roman Empire. I believe the most common view follows history, and that would make this great power Rome not simply the forces of Arabic nations driven by the Islamic religion.
There is no doubt that Muslims will play a key role in the tribulation but so will other forces and powers and nations that are not mentioned in Scripture. The best view still remains Rome!
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: Some rabbinical scholars say the same thing. They say the fourth empire in Daniel 7:7 is not Rome but the powers of present Islam. They actually say it is Edom which represents the Arabs of present day Jordan, and thus pictures the Islamic peoples. This is not an uncommon view for some Jewish interpreters.
However, the more common view is that Rome is represented here and not Islam. The reason is that this is a united "beast" and not a conglomeration of Arabic peoples gathered under the umbrella of Islam. Verse 23 says "The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom (not a collection of peoples) on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it." This beast is also made up of "ten horns and ten kings" (v. 24).
The description of this kingdom is spelled out in 2:40-43. This does not seem to be a religious movement such as Islam but a distinct nation. While the word "Rome" is not in any of the passages, all evidence leads to the great power that follows Greece, the Roman Empire. I believe the most common view follows history, and that would make this great power Rome not simply the forces of Arabic nations driven by the Islamic religion.
There is no doubt that Muslims will play a key role in the tribulation but so will other forces and powers and nations that are not mentioned in Scripture. The best view still remains Rome!
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Modern Apostles
Dr. Couch, do you believe we have modern apostles ("ones sent with a message") in the church today?
ANSWER: No, not at all. After Ephesians 4:11, the word is used sixteen times but it is referring to "evil apostles" or a few who are sent with a message in a general sense. The concept of an apostle has to do with the Twelve, those who were had seen Christ (in actuality—they walked with Him), traveled with Him, verified Him, or in a vision had seen Him, such as Paul, and was then called to verify the gospel message. These could bear witness to His reality and they were commissioned to carry forth the gospel.
Paul was appointed to be part of the "witness-ers" along with the twelve. He wrote that "in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I was a nobody" (2 Cor. 12:1). For "the signs of a true apostle were performed among you [by me] will all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles" (v. 12).
See also 1 Corinthians 15:6-11. Paul was the least of all the apostles. He's talking about the twelve who had a special place in witnessing of Christ and the gospel.
Some have questioned one verse about apostleship, and that is Romans 16:7 where Paul speaks about two men who "are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." "Apostles" in this context has to do with many apostles who were sent with a message but the context is not speaking about the Twelve. These men are never labeled with the twelve as being part of the special apostles. They were simply messengers who were "also in Christ before me" as believers but not as part of the class of the twelve (v. 7). Paul was "called (to be) an apostle of Jesus to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13, 1 Cor. 1:1). The twelve and Paul were the very "chiefest of the apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11).
The apostles the NT is talking about as the chiefest apostles is explained in Ephesians 3:5-8. There Paul speaks of the special twelve "holy apostles" "of which Paul was made a minister (along with them) according to the gift of God's grace which was given to him according to the working of His power, to Paul who was the very least of all saints to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, to bring to light what is the dispensation of the mystery (of the church)."
Paul makes an interesting statement in 1 Corinthians 15:10b. In reference to the twelve apostles, he says that he "labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." Of the twelve we only have mentioned Peter, James, and John. What were the others doing? They had a key role as witnessing of the actuality of Christ and of His ministry, and of His life, death, resurrection and ascension. Together then, Paul and the twelve "preached" the gospel and the Corinthians and others believed (v. 11). But they were not as vigorous as Paul in traveling about and working and giving the gospel. Not all have the same equal gifts or abilities. Whatever, Paul was not boasting, he was simply giving the facts.
Nicoll writes that Paul had ministered "over a region wider than all the Twelve had traversed up to this date." However, some say Paul is criticizing the apostles (minus Peter, James, and John) because they were more stationary than he. Whichever, the statement is interesting. Mitchell writes in my commentary series that Paul "has not yet recovered" from "the wonder of it all" that he should be elevated to the honor and office of apostleship, 'because I persecuted the church of God.'"
No matter what "the grace of God" was with Paul in placing him alongside the ministry of the Twelve.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: No, not at all. After Ephesians 4:11, the word is used sixteen times but it is referring to "evil apostles" or a few who are sent with a message in a general sense. The concept of an apostle has to do with the Twelve, those who were had seen Christ (in actuality—they walked with Him), traveled with Him, verified Him, or in a vision had seen Him, such as Paul, and was then called to verify the gospel message. These could bear witness to His reality and they were commissioned to carry forth the gospel.
Paul was appointed to be part of the "witness-ers" along with the twelve. He wrote that "in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I was a nobody" (2 Cor. 12:1). For "the signs of a true apostle were performed among you [by me] will all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles" (v. 12).
See also 1 Corinthians 15:6-11. Paul was the least of all the apostles. He's talking about the twelve who had a special place in witnessing of Christ and the gospel.
Some have questioned one verse about apostleship, and that is Romans 16:7 where Paul speaks about two men who "are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." "Apostles" in this context has to do with many apostles who were sent with a message but the context is not speaking about the Twelve. These men are never labeled with the twelve as being part of the special apostles. They were simply messengers who were "also in Christ before me" as believers but not as part of the class of the twelve (v. 7). Paul was "called (to be) an apostle of Jesus to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13, 1 Cor. 1:1). The twelve and Paul were the very "chiefest of the apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11).
The apostles the NT is talking about as the chiefest apostles is explained in Ephesians 3:5-8. There Paul speaks of the special twelve "holy apostles" "of which Paul was made a minister (along with them) according to the gift of God's grace which was given to him according to the working of His power, to Paul who was the very least of all saints to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, to bring to light what is the dispensation of the mystery (of the church)."
Paul makes an interesting statement in 1 Corinthians 15:10b. In reference to the twelve apostles, he says that he "labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." Of the twelve we only have mentioned Peter, James, and John. What were the others doing? They had a key role as witnessing of the actuality of Christ and of His ministry, and of His life, death, resurrection and ascension. Together then, Paul and the twelve "preached" the gospel and the Corinthians and others believed (v. 11). But they were not as vigorous as Paul in traveling about and working and giving the gospel. Not all have the same equal gifts or abilities. Whatever, Paul was not boasting, he was simply giving the facts.
Nicoll writes that Paul had ministered "over a region wider than all the Twelve had traversed up to this date." However, some say Paul is criticizing the apostles (minus Peter, James, and John) because they were more stationary than he. Whichever, the statement is interesting. Mitchell writes in my commentary series that Paul "has not yet recovered" from "the wonder of it all" that he should be elevated to the honor and office of apostleship, 'because I persecuted the church of God.'"
No matter what "the grace of God" was with Paul in placing him alongside the ministry of the Twelve.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Thursday, April 7, 2011
The Antichrist Granted
Dr. Couch, Revelation 6:4 seems to say that the antichrist "is given, granted" to take peace from the earth. Is that "granting" coming from God or someone else?
ANSWER: Those of us who are able to read the Bible (and especially from the Greek text) note carefully the fact that the Lord is absolutely sovereign in all things. The word "given" is a Passive Voice from the verb "to give" (didomi). The force of the giving comes from an outside source, and that source is God!
I have always known that because I've translated almost the entire book of Revelation. But I checked out the best commentary on the subject of Revelation written by Dr. Robert L. Thomas. And he says the same thing. He writes:
"The best opinion is that [was given] carries the connotation 'granted by God' as it does throughout the book of Revelation (cf. 6:4, 8; 7:2; 9:5). God allows the beast to blaspheme for a limited time, but will still hold him accountable. One of the great lessons in Daniel from which John draws so heavily is the sovereignty of God over the world's governments (cf. Dan. 4:17, 25, 32). The future will be no different.
"There is a durative force in the passage. 'a mouth that continues speaking great things.'"
"The beast's God-permitted authority was given' over every lineage, nation, language group, and racial group is explicitly worldwide in its extent ("the whole earth")."
The beast and Satan have authority for a period but in the end God sends them to the lake of fire forever. "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev. 20:10).
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: Those of us who are able to read the Bible (and especially from the Greek text) note carefully the fact that the Lord is absolutely sovereign in all things. The word "given" is a Passive Voice from the verb "to give" (didomi). The force of the giving comes from an outside source, and that source is God!
I have always known that because I've translated almost the entire book of Revelation. But I checked out the best commentary on the subject of Revelation written by Dr. Robert L. Thomas. And he says the same thing. He writes:
"The best opinion is that [was given] carries the connotation 'granted by God' as it does throughout the book of Revelation (cf. 6:4, 8; 7:2; 9:5). God allows the beast to blaspheme for a limited time, but will still hold him accountable. One of the great lessons in Daniel from which John draws so heavily is the sovereignty of God over the world's governments (cf. Dan. 4:17, 25, 32). The future will be no different.
"There is a durative force in the passage. 'a mouth that continues speaking great things.'"
"The beast's God-permitted authority was given' over every lineage, nation, language group, and racial group is explicitly worldwide in its extent ("the whole earth")."
The beast and Satan have authority for a period but in the end God sends them to the lake of fire forever. "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev. 20:10).
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Two New Covenants
Dr. Couch, are there two New Covenants in Scripture, one for Israel and one for the church?
ANSWER: No, there is not. Older dispensationalists (some of them) held to that view. Remember, they were pioneering "forward" as to what the Bible was teaching; they were learning as they went along. In order to avoid a mixing of the church and Israel, some said there were two New Covenants. But gradually they realized that this was in error. Many of the older dispensationalists changed their view on the subject, rightly so. Those of us who really were blessed with exegetical skills in graduate school were quick to see what the Bible was really teaching on the subject.
Here's how it works: (1) There is only one New Covenant. (2) It is first promised to Israel. (3) It has to do with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sin. (4) It is a replacement of the dispensation of the Law with the dispensation of Grace. (5) The church presently benefits by the blessing of the New Covenant. (6) We are not given any of the Land promises that Israel will be given in the Kingdom dispensation.
The New Covenant was (1) ratified by the death of Christ (Luke 22:19-20). It was (2) launched at Pentecost (Acts 2). And the church now benefits by the New Covenant. (3) The believers are the servants of the New Covenant according to 2 Corinthians 3:6-7. Paul shows us the contrast (4) we now can appreciate between the Law ("by the letter") and the New Covenant ("by the Spirit") (Rom. 2:29; 7:6). (5) The Spirit is the one who activates the New Covenant.
The church does not fulfill the New Covenant but it will be fulfilled by Israel in the Kingdom (Ezek. 36:24-28).
I suggest you read Chafer's MAJOR BIBLE THEMES, pages 146-48, for a good treatment on better contemporary thinking about the New Covenant. I hold to most of this but not all. (This is a revised volume of Chafer's by Dr. John F. Walvoord.)
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: No, there is not. Older dispensationalists (some of them) held to that view. Remember, they were pioneering "forward" as to what the Bible was teaching; they were learning as they went along. In order to avoid a mixing of the church and Israel, some said there were two New Covenants. But gradually they realized that this was in error. Many of the older dispensationalists changed their view on the subject, rightly so. Those of us who really were blessed with exegetical skills in graduate school were quick to see what the Bible was really teaching on the subject.
Here's how it works: (1) There is only one New Covenant. (2) It is first promised to Israel. (3) It has to do with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sin. (4) It is a replacement of the dispensation of the Law with the dispensation of Grace. (5) The church presently benefits by the blessing of the New Covenant. (6) We are not given any of the Land promises that Israel will be given in the Kingdom dispensation.
The New Covenant was (1) ratified by the death of Christ (Luke 22:19-20). It was (2) launched at Pentecost (Acts 2). And the church now benefits by the New Covenant. (3) The believers are the servants of the New Covenant according to 2 Corinthians 3:6-7. Paul shows us the contrast (4) we now can appreciate between the Law ("by the letter") and the New Covenant ("by the Spirit") (Rom. 2:29; 7:6). (5) The Spirit is the one who activates the New Covenant.
The church does not fulfill the New Covenant but it will be fulfilled by Israel in the Kingdom (Ezek. 36:24-28).
I suggest you read Chafer's MAJOR BIBLE THEMES, pages 146-48, for a good treatment on better contemporary thinking about the New Covenant. I hold to most of this but not all. (This is a revised volume of Chafer's by Dr. John F. Walvoord.)
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Monday, April 4, 2011
Familiar Spirit
Dr. Couch, what is a familiar spirit?
ANSWER: The expression "familiar spirit" is referring to a spirit or demon that indwells a medium. "Familiar" implies the spirit that abides within a witch or warlock. That spirit is residing in and controlling the medium in carrying out demonic activities.
The KJV uses the expression "familiar spirit" but the NASB uses the expression "a medium." Leviticus 19:31 says "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."
"Defiled" is a reference to the fact that they were casting bones of the dead in order to read orders set forth by Satan or the demons.
In the Zondervan King James Commentary recently published I wrote on the book of Leviticus:
The Jews were not to follow pagan customs "in contrast to how the Lord (v. 30) was to be worshiped. Also prohibited were necromancy (worship of the dead) and the worship of familiar spirits (v. 31). Israel was not to seek advice from witches and warlocks (wizards). The Jews would be defiled by them. These verses give hints of how prevalent such practices were. Such prohibitions set the nation of Israel in contrast to the other peoples of the world."
America is moving back to spiritism and demon worship on our Mexican and Southwestern borders. In Mexico there are demon malls with shops that sell witchcraft items, books, booklets, skulls, amulets, watchcraft paraphernalia. These malls are now coming across the borders and selling such items in the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California towns. One man told me that many kids are hanging out in these demon malls and being influenced by what is sold in these shops.
The flood of the illegal and legal immigrants is changing the moral and spiritual landscape of America. We are moving from a Protestant-European oriented nation to an Hispanic-Spanish, Catholic and demonic-oriented country. There is no turning back. This is a judgment of God. Our country will never be the same. The peace and quiet that we once had is disappearing.
You will not hear this from other Bible teachers but you will hear the truth from Dr. Couch. I am blaming no one but ourselves. We have changed as a people. We have embraced the other cultures. While God loves all, there is a truth to the fact that other cultures are not Reformation cultures. They do not see the Word of God as we do. We have forfeited our heritage.
I just heard that at our "big" secular universities, the young people are sharing names and photos with those who want to have sex together in the dorms of those schools. Those are the elite schools that cost $40,000 each year for tuition. Do the parents know what is happening with their kids? I doubt it! That is our next generation and leaders. We have indeed destroyed our heritage!
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: The expression "familiar spirit" is referring to a spirit or demon that indwells a medium. "Familiar" implies the spirit that abides within a witch or warlock. That spirit is residing in and controlling the medium in carrying out demonic activities.
The KJV uses the expression "familiar spirit" but the NASB uses the expression "a medium." Leviticus 19:31 says "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."
"Defiled" is a reference to the fact that they were casting bones of the dead in order to read orders set forth by Satan or the demons.
In the Zondervan King James Commentary recently published I wrote on the book of Leviticus:
The Jews were not to follow pagan customs "in contrast to how the Lord (v. 30) was to be worshiped. Also prohibited were necromancy (worship of the dead) and the worship of familiar spirits (v. 31). Israel was not to seek advice from witches and warlocks (wizards). The Jews would be defiled by them. These verses give hints of how prevalent such practices were. Such prohibitions set the nation of Israel in contrast to the other peoples of the world."
America is moving back to spiritism and demon worship on our Mexican and Southwestern borders. In Mexico there are demon malls with shops that sell witchcraft items, books, booklets, skulls, amulets, watchcraft paraphernalia. These malls are now coming across the borders and selling such items in the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California towns. One man told me that many kids are hanging out in these demon malls and being influenced by what is sold in these shops.
The flood of the illegal and legal immigrants is changing the moral and spiritual landscape of America. We are moving from a Protestant-European oriented nation to an Hispanic-Spanish, Catholic and demonic-oriented country. There is no turning back. This is a judgment of God. Our country will never be the same. The peace and quiet that we once had is disappearing.
You will not hear this from other Bible teachers but you will hear the truth from Dr. Couch. I am blaming no one but ourselves. We have changed as a people. We have embraced the other cultures. While God loves all, there is a truth to the fact that other cultures are not Reformation cultures. They do not see the Word of God as we do. We have forfeited our heritage.
I just heard that at our "big" secular universities, the young people are sharing names and photos with those who want to have sex together in the dorms of those schools. Those are the elite schools that cost $40,000 each year for tuition. Do the parents know what is happening with their kids? I doubt it! That is our next generation and leaders. We have indeed destroyed our heritage!
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Everlasting Covenant
Dr. Couch, what is the everlasting covenant?
ANSWER: This adjectival description is applied to the Abraham covenant. So it can be applied several places to several covenants. God told Abraham "My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you" (Gen. 17:7). With Isaac "I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant ..." (v. 19). "The covenant which God made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, … to Israel as an everlasting covenant" (Psa. 105:10). "The covenant which He made with Abraham, … to Israel as an everlasting covenant" (1 Chron. 16:16-17). You will be priests and ministers of the Lord … I will make an everlasting covenant with them" (Isa. 61:8).
The Mosaic Law "it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel" (Lev. 24:8).
The New Covenant: "I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, … I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. And they shall be My people; and I will be their God, and I will give them one heart and one way, … And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them ..." (Jer. 32:37-40).
Future fulfillment of the New Covenant: "It will be the Lord their God they will seek. They will ask for the way to Zion, turning their faces in its direction; they will come that they may join themselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten" (50:4-5). Unger writes on Jer. 50:5:
"They will join themselves in a perpetual covenant, the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) based upon Christ's finished redemption work (Zech. 12:10-13:1), in contrast to the Old Covenant (the Law) which they broke."
The Abrahamic and New covenants are eternal, and so is the Law (Mosaic) Covenant. Christ fulfilled it eternally though we are no longer under it.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
ANSWER: This adjectival description is applied to the Abraham covenant. So it can be applied several places to several covenants. God told Abraham "My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you" (Gen. 17:7). With Isaac "I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant ..." (v. 19). "The covenant which God made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, … to Israel as an everlasting covenant" (Psa. 105:10). "The covenant which He made with Abraham, … to Israel as an everlasting covenant" (1 Chron. 16:16-17). You will be priests and ministers of the Lord … I will make an everlasting covenant with them" (Isa. 61:8).
The Mosaic Law "it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel" (Lev. 24:8).
The New Covenant: "I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, … I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. And they shall be My people; and I will be their God, and I will give them one heart and one way, … And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them ..." (Jer. 32:37-40).
Future fulfillment of the New Covenant: "It will be the Lord their God they will seek. They will ask for the way to Zion, turning their faces in its direction; they will come that they may join themselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten" (50:4-5). Unger writes on Jer. 50:5:
"They will join themselves in a perpetual covenant, the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) based upon Christ's finished redemption work (Zech. 12:10-13:1), in contrast to the Old Covenant (the Law) which they broke."
The Abrahamic and New covenants are eternal, and so is the Law (Mosaic) Covenant. Christ fulfilled it eternally though we are no longer under it.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)