Interim Covenant

Dr. Couch, I've come to the conclusion that there was an "Interim Covenant" with the Jews until the New Covenant came into view for the Gentiles. What do you say?

ANSWER: I believe you are confused, and that you are adding somethings to the book of Acts that are not there. I know of no one who would hold to that position. There is no reason to deny that Acts 2 is the outpouring of the Spirit of God and the beginning of the New Covenant as promised by Christ in 1:5, where He said "You shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

What Peter said in 11:15 and in 15:8 is very important. He told the apostles "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them (Cornelius and his house) just as He did upon us at the beginning" (11:15). And, he said earlier, "Everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (10:43), and too, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE DID CAN HE?" (10:47). And, "God who knows the hearts bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as HE ALSO DID TO US" (15:8).

The Holy Spirit is the sign for the New Covenant. The expression "The Spirit upon us" is about Acts 2. I believe you are listening to some who have an agenda and who are trying to make a two-step movement with the Spirit and avoiding the pouring out of the Spirit in Acts 2 for some reason. Let the Bible just speak for itself. Don't complicate the issue!

Peter says that what was happening in Acts 2 was mentioned in Joel 2 (Acts 2:16-21), and this is the New Covenant.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (2/12)

Hyper-Dispensationalism

Dr. Couch, what is hyper-dispensationalism? ANSWER:  This is also called ultra-dispensationalism. Remember, there are always folks out there who are a little weird. They always gravitate to odd views, and that is the case of these people. I liken this to this example:    There are people who go into the cafeteria and head straight for the food bar with all kinds of goodies. But then there are those who enter the cafeteria and go straight to the garbage can. You can't figure out why they want the garbage instead of the good stuff. I've always noted in the ministry there are those who can't think on a straight line. They are always led to that which is stupid or just not correct!    To put it simply, the hyper folks hold that the church did not begin until Acts 9. This is because, they argue that Paul did not come on the scene until about that chapter. But it does not matter when Paul came on the scene. The church began in Acts 2, period!    I had a fellow who held to that view and I took him to a bunch of verses. In 5 minutes he dropped his hyper-dispensationalism! He saw the light. By the way, he was a "fighting fundy" who was extremely "tight" in his Christianity. He had no joy, no happiness, he did not smile. Everything was just super serious to him. So it was expected that he would think weird! The Bible makes it clear, the church started earlier:    The church is mentioned in 5:11; 8:1, 3. So the church was around before Acts 9.    Don't listen to odd teachings.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (8/10)

John 20:22-23

Dr. Couch, what is going on in John 20:22-23? Can you help? ANSWER:  The passage reads: Christ "breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.'"    This passage has two parts. (1) The breathing on them of the Holy Spirit. "Receive" is an Aorist Active Imperative (or command). It is the common Greek word "lambano." No time frame is given in the verse. I take it that it is speaking about the future, at Pentecost, when the Spirit will enter the believers as prophesied. However these men, the disciples, will indeed have a distinct ministry above and beyond what the average layman will have. The disciples are called to be the leaders of the church. What they do and say will have special implications.    There are many places in the Bible where something is said that sounds like it is going to take place right then, at that moment, but in reality, it has to do with something that will happen at some point in the future. I think that is the case here. We have no indication that right then, at that time, they got the Holy Spirit, though we know they did in Acts 2. Christ said to His disciples just before His ascension: "You shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" (v. 5).    The word "received" ("lambano") along with the Holy Spirit, is used eight times in the NT. This would indicate that my view is correct.    Then there is the issue of (2) The forgiveness of sins by the disciples (v. 23). The verse ties into Matthew 16:16-20. Peter was given the authority to judge the sins of Israel in this Matthew passage. It is too extensive to deal with this issue here but to simply say, that in the John 20 passage the disciples had to a limited degree the ability to judge as well as Peter. When it says "the sins have been forgive" (v. 23) it is stated so with a Perfect Tense, which means that this forgiveness was already accomplished in the past by the Lord, but simply brought forward by the disciples. In the NAS it is translated correctly: "The sins HAVE BEEN (in the past) forgiven."    I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (6-10)

Spirit-Driven Miracles

Dr. Couch, do the Spirit-driven miracles that are mentioned in Joel 2:26-32, and repeated in Acts 2:17-21, take place at that time in Acts, or do they only come about as Israel enters the Kingdom, when the Spirit is poured forth upon the Jewish people at that time? ANSWER:  You are speaking about the fact that God's Spirit will come "upon all mankind" (Acts 2:17) and about the Jewish sons and daughters giving prophecies, seeing visions, and dreaming dreams (vv. 17-18). Though dreams and visions are not mentioned as coming to pass in Acts, except here in this passage, this does not mean that they did not take place in the early church. I believe that these prophetic happenings took place in the early church because the Spirit is poured out with the initiation of the New covenant—the proof of which is the fact that the Spirit has come upon the believers.    I argue that Christ ratified the New covenant by His death (Luke 22:20), it was launched here in Acts 2, the church presently benefits by it, but the New covenant will not be fulfilled until it comes upon the Jewish people in the Kingdom. The two proofs of the New covenant having been launched is: (1) permanent forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:31-34), and (2) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Ezekiel 36-37, and referred to in Joel 2.    We find the Holy Spirit working in church believers with prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12-14. But again, we are not fulfilling the New covenant but only benefiting by it. It is mainly for the Jewish people, when they turn to their Messiah in the Kingdom!    A very important point is made in Acts 2:17: "I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind." Peter is quoting Joel 2:28. Some try to argue that "mankind" is about the nation of Israel but this is not the case. In the Hebrew of Joel 2:28 "mankind" is the Hebrew words "Al Cal Basar." Or, "Upon all flesh." This is never used only of the Jews but of the Gentiles too. The Greek of Acts 2:28 is "pasan sarka." Again, "all flesh."    This was what was happening in Acts 2 when the Spirit was poured forth. He came upon Jews but also Gentiles. Remember the people there at Pentecost were both Jews and Gentile proselytes who were believing in the God of the OT (v. 10).    Acts 2:16 is most important. In the Greek text it reads: "But this is that which was spoken through (by means of) the prophet Joel ..." The "To be" verb "estin" is in the verse. And the "To be" verb is equal grammatically on both sides. "This is exactly that which was spoken ..." In almost all languages the Nominative case is on both sides of the "to be" verb. Or, "This is the same thing as that ..." "That which was spoken" is the Perfect Passive Participle, Nominative, Neuter. Thus, "That which was spoken of in the past, with the action coming up to the present ..." Or, "What was said back in Joel 2 is now coming up to the present ..."    Conclusion: "What Joel said is now coming about. And we're all seeing it here at Pentecost!"    I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. If you would like more on the importance of the New covenant, you may want my book that deals with that covenant but also with the coming Messianic Kingdom of Christ: "The New Covenant."    Dr. Mal Couch (6-10)

Israel Fulfills the New Covenant

Dr. Couch, you have made me a believer in regard to the fact that the church benefits from the New covenant today, but we do not "fulfill" it as Israel will in the kingdom. Why do people resist this idea? I'm specifically referring to the quoting of Joel 2 in Acts 2, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. ANSWER:  Mainly because they do not read their Bible; they do not have good interpretive skills! This is why I wrote one of the few books available today on hermeneutics: Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Kregel).    I will only have space here to summarize:    (1) For Israel, the New covenant is prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-on. (2) It will be activated by the work of the Spirit, as prophesied in Joel 2:28-29. (3) Christ said that His sacrifice would ratify the New covenant. (Luke 22:20): "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." (4) The New covenant is then "launched" at Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21), but it is not fulfilled by the church, though the church will benefit and represent the New covenant during the church dispensation.    There are three places in Paul's letters that show the church has a connection with the New covenant presently but the verses never say we fulfill it now. It will be fulfilled when applied to Israel during the dispensation of the Kingdom.    Paul speaks to the Jews in Romans 2:17-29 and argues that, for them, to be a believing Jew today, their circumcision is spiritual and their Jewish-ness is inward. Then he adds, "by the Spirit, not by the letter [of the Mosaic law]; the Jews' praise is not from men, but from God." Here Paul compares the New covenant with the Law and points out that it has replaced the "letter of the Law" as prophesied in Jeremiah 31. There Jeremiah said that the New covenant will replace the Mosaic covenant. "The New covenant will not be like "My covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke ..."    Paul speaks of the New covenant again in Romans 7:6: "We serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter [of the law]." The Holy Spirit mentioned in both 2:29 and 7:6 is the Activator of the New covenant today in the church age. Paul mentions the New covenant again in 2 Corinthians 3:3 where he says the church saints are a letter of Christ "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts ..." Here, Paul is again comparing the work of the Spirit, who is the Activator of the New covenant, with the Mosaic law. He adds that we are now "servants of a New covenant, not of the letter [of the law] but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (v. 6).    It is important to look carefully at what Peter says about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:16. He (1) does not say the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost fulfills Joel 2 [as the amillennialists would say], nor (2) does he say that it is simply an "illustration" of the work of the Spirit, as mentioned in Joel 2 [as some dispensational buddies of mine would say]. But instead, in quoting Joel 2:28-29, he says "But this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel."    One must know Greek in order to fully understand what is going on here. Peter writes: "This IS 'that which has been written'". The IS is the common "TO BE" verb (estin). And "which has been written" is a Perfect Passive Participle, Neuter, Nominative. In Greek (and in English) on both sides of the TO BE verb you have the Nominative case. Thus, this which [is now going on—the outpouring of the Holy Spirit] has been written (ereo) is simply the same thing as mentioned in Joel 2!    Peter had ways to say that Joel 2 was an illustrative of the outpouring of the Spirit; and he had ways of saying that Joel 2 was being fulfilled here in Acts 2, but Peter did not say either one of these things!    The only sound conclusion is that the church presently is benefiting from the outpouring of the Spirit, and of the New covenant, but the church is not fulfilling the New covenant! That will happen with Israel when the Kingdom arrives and the Jews are back in the Land! At that time, for them, the New covenant will be fulfilled!    This is complicated to write, so I hope it makes sense. Many of my friends are now seeing the issue this way, and I think this is correct.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Oct., 09)

What About Tongues?

Dr. Couch, some Charismatics believe that tongues in Acts 2 is a true foreign language but the speaking of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is: (1) a kind of aesthetic utterance, a gibberish, (2) a foreign language, or (3) an angelic utterance and language. I heard you one time in the past give a sound answer that proved in both references, it is an actual language, and that the same thing is in view. Would you repeat that?

ANSWER: Unfortunately, most Charismatics are not very well-trained. They almost believe that it is wrong to study the Bible, and to understand it doctrinally by the Greek text. While some would deny this, in practice that is often how they operate when it comes to proving its message from the Greek language. I have seen them even get angry if you say, "The Greek text says …" They seem to believe that the KJV was inspired and is our actual Bible. They cannot get it through their heads that our English versions are just that, versions! But the proof that in both Acts and 1 Corinthians, we can demonstrate that tongues in both cases was a language and not some aesthetic mumbling.
In Acts 2 4 it is written that when the Spirit fell on those standing about "they spoke with other tongues. In Greek this is heterais glossais. In 1 Corinthians 14:21 (quoting Isaiah 28:11) Paul puts the two words together and writes the same thing with: hetroglossois. The meaning is identical and is translated other languages.

If I were a detective and went to the robbery scene, and found the same finger print in the bathroom, and in the den, I would rightly conclude that the finger prints were left by the same person. If I have the same phrase describing this miracle of languages in two different places, I would assume I am looking at the same phenomena. A language is thus in both places!

But this is too complicated for many Charismatics to understand. It is as if their biblical reasoning cannot go that far! But the fact is that they want to believe what they want to believe, when they want to believe it, never mind what the Bible says. And by the way, I have had Charismatics say just that. "But I don't care what the Bible says, my experience comes before the biblical text!"

I hope this helps.
Dr. Mal Couch

Will the Rapture Take Place on Pentecost

Dr. Couch, some argue that the rapture of the church will take place on Pentecost because that is when the Holy Spirit came upon the church in Acts 2. What is wrong with that position?

ANSWER:  The pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 first of all has to do with the launching of the New Covenant, which will benefit the church, though the New Covenant is promised for Israel. The New Covenant replaces the dispensation of the Law of Moses. The Spirit of God is the sign that the New Covenant has come. He is the Activator of that Covenant.

   That the New would replace the Covenant of Moses (the Law) is spelled out clearly in Jeremiah 31:31-37. "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt [the Mosaic Covenant]." Peter then quotes all of Joel 2:28-32 to show that what was happening in Acts 2 had to do with the launching of that New Covenant. "I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind …" (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17).

   It is important to note that Acts 2 is not a "fulfillment" of Joel 2 but a launching of the New Covenant. It will be fulfilled with Israel when God works again in the dispensation of the Kingdom, when the Jews come home to the Holy Land and believe in Jesus their Savior and their King.

   The church presently benefits from the New Covenant. It is now in operation but not completed in the sense of being fulfilled and finalized. Note that all Peter says is "This is that." He does not say "This is a fulfillment of …" Neither does he say that what was happening was but "an illustration" of the New Covenant, as some of my theological buddies say.

   That the church benefits from the New Covenant is alluded to in three places in the NT. Paul says that the circumcision of the heart is "by the Spirit, not by the letter [of the Mosaic Law] …" (Rom. 2:29). And he says again in 7:6 that "we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter [of the Mosaic Law]." Then in 2 Corinthians 3:4-8 he writes that we in the church dispensation now are "adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter [of the Mosaic Law], but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Note he does not say "fulfillment" nor that it happened in Acts 2 as some kind of illustration! But he does show how presently the church is benefiting by it.

   The problem has been that many older dispensational teachers confused what was happening in Acts 2 as first and foremost for the church. This is not true. Some went so far as to say there were two New Covenants, one for Israel and one for the church. They were extremely conscious about not mixing the church and Israel But, in my opinion, they went too far to make their point.

   The New Covenant has been launched, the church presently benefits by it, but it will be finally fulfilled in the Kingdom when the nation of Israel accepts Christ as Savior and King. This will be the work of the Holy Spirit, and not (obviously) the work of the Law!

   This is not a co-mingling of Israel and the church. The two entities are still distinct and separate.

   To summarize: Acts 2 is about the launching (not fulfilling) of the New Covenant. It contrasts with and replaces the Mosaic Law. The church presently benefits from that New Covenant, and, it will have its ultimate fulfillment in the Kingdom.

   If you want to get it all straight I urge you to order my Handbook of the Book of Acts (Kregel). All of this is thoroughly explained in detail in that volume. I think the book would be an eye-opener!

   Thanks for asking.
   Dr. Mal Couch  

Views on the New Covenant

Dr. Couch, what are your views on the new covenant? Is it the same as Miles Stanford? 

 

    ANSWER:  I am not sure of his views but I can tell you the views that I know are not biblical and the one that is biblical. 

    Some believe (1) the church picks up the new covenant forfeited by Israel. (2) Some believe the new covenant is now fulfilled by the church. The correct view is that (3) the new covenant (testament) was ratified by the blood of Christ (Luke 22:20) and that the church now benefits by it but does not fulfill it. The new covenant was promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31 starting with verse 31. It contrasts with and replaces the Law, the Mosaic covenant. 

    The new covenant was launched in Acts 2 and will not have to be launched again for Israel when the kingdom begins. Christ ratified the covenant for Israel but the Jews did not come on the stage and accept His sacrifice. 

    The apostle Paul makes it clear that for now the church is the beneficiary of the new covenant and is responsible for it. The church believers are the “deacons” of the new covenant. See 2 Corinthians 3:1-10. 

    Paul alludes to how we presently benefit by the new covenant in the 2 Corinthians 3 passage and at least two other references: He writes that true circumcision is “by the Spirit (the Initiator of the new covenant), not by the letter (of the Mosaic Law)” (Rom. 2:29). And he writes: “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (the Mosaic Law)” (7:6). In both of these passages Paul is alluding to the first reference of the new covenant found in Jeremiah 31. 

    I hope this helps.  Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch