Heavenly Kingdoms

Dr. Couch, how do we know the difference between the "Kingdom of heaven" and the "Kingdom of God" in opposition to the other heavenly kingdoms mentioned in Scripture?

ANSWER: All the references that say the "Kingdom of Heaven (God)" are references to the millennial kingdom. Almost all the other kingdom references would be God's rule over His heavenly kingdom. Dr. John Walvoord gave high praise and endorsement to my Hermeneutic book in which I deal with this issue in chapter 22.  You need that book for a multitude of reasons. The orthodox Jewish rabbis tell us that it was common for the Kingdom of Heaven (God) references to be referring to the millennial reign of the Messiah.

I think part of our fear of being clear ourselves on this matter is because of the false influence of Covenant Theology. The Word of God is really easy to read and understand if we don't come to it with preconceptions that come from poor theology. Just let the Bible speak!

Thanks for asking.
--Dr. Mal Couch (4/12)

"The Kingdom of God" Present in the Church Today

Dr. Couch, Millard Erickson says that "the kingdom of God" over which Christ reigns, is present in the church. What do you say?

ANSWER: Erickson has not read carefully. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are two ways of describing the millennial kingdom. I proved this clearly in my book "An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics." Dr. Walvoord had not seen this before, and before he endorsed my book, agreed with what I had written. As you know he was an outstanding prophecy scholar. This is a book that is making clear interpretation of the Bible. And, it is one of the few interpretative books now available.

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

Books on Premillennial Theology

Dr. Couch, I'm convinced. From much that you've been writing I see the error of amillennialism and covenant theology. Where can I read more on how all that heresy began?

ANSWER: I suggest three sources, or study the teaching of three individuals in church history. (1) Philo, (2) Origen, and (3) Augustine. They are the ones who influenced the church the most by their writings on allegorical interpretation.

The sources would be Bernard Ramm in his book Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Read pages 24-38. Read also on Catholic Allegorism (pp. 38-45). Also study the section on the Syrian School of Antioch (pp. 48-50). Antioch was most influenced by the early prophets and probably Paul as mentioned in the book of Acts. They maintained and taught the literal approach to Scripture for generations. Ramm writes "The result of these principles [developed in Antioch] was some of the finest exegetical literature of ancient times." And the literal interpretative school at Antioch, especially in "The commentary of Theodore [of Mopsuestia] on the minor epistles of Paul is the first and almost the last exegetical work produced in the ancient Church which will bear any comparison with modern commentaries."

Check out the three names of the men mentioned above in my Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel). I also wrote a chapter on the Antiochian School as well.

Read also what I wrote on these men in my interpretation book Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Kregel). The allegory and destructive hermeneutics of these men greatly influenced Catholic and then Reformation thinking in their spiritualizing especially biblical prophecy. I really do not think most allegory and amillennial guys know the origin of their own system. They are great quoters but terrible interpreters. They are unable to think textually and biblically.

I quote Trigg who shows the foolishness of Origen in his interpretation on Matthew 24 and the issue of the return of Christ. Trigg points out that Origen, on the two men laboring in the field, believes this "represents good and bad influences on a person's will." How dumb!
And I quote on Origen the great church historian and Lutheran amillennialist, Philip Schaff, when he has to admit that "His allegorical interpretation is ingenious, but often runs far away from the text and degenerates into the merest caprice." I conclude in my book, "amillennialists continue to utilize a system of interpretation that is textually and historically at odds with the normal reading [even] understood by the early church."

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

The Kingdom of God and The Kingdom of Heaven

Dr. Couch, is the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven the same thing?

ANSWER: Yes, they are, and I prove it in my Hermeneutic book, page 291. When Dr. John F. Walvoord saw this chapter he went silent! He realized that I had proven the point. You need my Hermeneutic volume, one of the few books on the subject.

Since I have so proven the point I won't repeat the information here but just to say, get the volume! The full title: An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Kregel).


Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (11/11)

Progressive Revelation, Covenant Theologians, and Dispensationalists

Dr. Couch, what does Progressive Revelation have to do with the differences between Covenant theologians and dispensationalists? They see the covenant blessings promised to Israel as given to the church whereby we are heirs of those prophecies.

ANSWER: The word heir or inheritance are two Greek words put together meaning: "to legally call," "to legally designate." Almost all the verses using the word is referring to salvation not to all the covenant promises to Israel. I know of no NT verses that say the church is inheriting the land promises. It is true that the church will be in the millennium but the church today is not the kingdom, the millennium!

Dispensationalist are correct: Christ is not today reigning over the world through Israel in the Holy Land, there is not a restored earthly temple today, as Ezekiel indicates in chapters 40-48.

We premillennialists are in the right camp. We hold what the early church held to and what the pious orthodox Jews believed (and still believe); they still hold to Israel as being restored (as prophesied). The Jews are coming to Christ (as prophesied), a world war is near (as prophesied).

There is nothing that we "spiritualize" but the Covenant theologians must spiritualize (the kingdom) which we do not. We then do not have two phases of interpretation. We are consistent with literal interpretation. In fact, I believe it was Ladd who said, "If we held to literal interpretation as the premillennialists do, we would hold to their same position." Right on!

The issue is not about Progressive Revelation or about the word "heir." The issue is about being consistent with interpretation. And it is about seeing the clear distinction between Israel and the Church! The church is not Israel. Some of the covenant guys say "the church is in Israel in the OT." This is clearly not so!

Those of you who have my Hermeneutics book need to read the long quotes on pages 12-13, and pages 182 through the middle of 189.

My Hermeneutic book answers all of these issues. The book is used in many Bible colleges and seminaries. Several Covenant men reviewed my book and could not answer my charges against their views. I believe it answers all their errors about interpretation.

Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (7/11)

Progressive Dispensationalism Destroying the Bible

Dr. Couch, does not Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) put interpretation in dangerous territory? Is it not destroying a clear meaning of the understanding of the Bible? ANSWER:  Yes, indeed, it is. The founders of this view of interpretation said when they revealed their system that they wanted to have a compromise system with covenant theology. They admitted they wanted the covenant guys to like them and not look down on traditional dispensationalism.    I am not a dispensationist as one who simply follows a system. The Bible IS dispensational. That is the nature of Scripture. I do not have to foist a view on the Bible. I just take it at face value and the Word of God "interprets" itself. I read the Bible with a literal approach, and with a historical, grammatical interpretation. This is what the orthodox Godly Jews did with the Old Testament. What they come up with, I come up with. Christ did not chide the Jews for their belief in prophecy or in their literal understanding of Scripture. He chided the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and their legalism. The PD guys, Blaising and Bock, added biblical theology to interpretation, along with their approach to understanding Scripture. They say the interpreter adds theology in his interpretive mix. This is dead wrong. We develop our theology from our observation of what Scripture is saying.    I know for a fact that PD at one of the "big" seminaries in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area has blunted an understanding of the Bible. The students come out not fully knowing the prophetic Word. They come out confused as to what the Bible is teaching. I remember some years ago talking to the class president of that school and asking him what he was going to do when he graduated. He said he was going to Westminster Seminary in order to understand what the Bible said. He was tugged by Covenant Theology because of his confusion as a graduate from that big (supposedly) dispensational school. All he had to do was read the theologies of Berkhof and Charles Hodge to find out about Covenant theology. In their books he will find that the Covenant guys admit that Covenant theology is not in the Bible, that the covenants of grace and works are simply "implied" in the Bible, they are not "explicit." They were made with Adam, and Christ, in eternity past but that you can't find them in Scripture. What a dumb system! You need to read my quotes of Berkhof and Hodge in my Classical Evangelical Hermeneutical textbook on pages 158-59. You will be shocked at what they say!    Dispensationalists can "prove" the dispensational nature of the Bible.    PD and Covenant theology are just plain nutty!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (9/10)

Mosaic Covenant

Dr. Couch, what is the difference between the Mosaic covenant and the dispensation of Law? ANSWER:  I only hold to biblical covenants, that is, those that are called "covenants" in the Bible. (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, Land, New) Thus, there is no such thing as the "covenants" "of grace (or redemption)," or "of works." Even the big covenant guys like Berhkof and Hodge admit that these are not explicit but, in their view (though they are wrong) they say they are implied, and they were made in eternity past, even before the time of Adam. In other words, the covenants of grace and works are made up by the covenant guys. But dispensationalists can easily see the dispensational changes that are obvious as the Bible moves along. A dispensation is an economy, or a period in the way God is working that is distinct from another period.    Some dispensationalists make a big deal about the fact that a dispensation is not about a specific period of time. While it is true that the word does not reflect the idea of a time-period, still a dispensation differentiates one time period from another. Thus, time is involved!     The Mosaic covenant is called "a covenant," so therefore, it is! We can observe the changes in time and in history, in the way God is dealing with people in Scripture. Thus, we can observe the changes that took place when God gave Moses the law covenant. This was now a different period than the way He dealt with the Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the law dispensation will be done away with, and we will move to the dispensation of the New covenant, or the church dispensation.    We OBSERVE and can SEE the dispensations, the obvious changes from one period to the next. This is not hard to do, unless one is brainwashed by the mindless arguments of the covenant guys.     This is really simple and easy to follow—it is not complicated or hard to understand. It is just that Covenant guys are locked in to what they perceive in their minds and they totally miss what the Bible is saying.    Charles Hodge believed in the dispensations. See my book Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics. However, he did not believe in the dispensation of the coming kingdom.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (9/10)

Application of the Parables

Dr. Couch, you have said that the parables of Matthew 13 have nothing to do with the church today. Does this mean that the parables of the sower, and the wheat and tares, apply strictly to Israel and the Jews? ANSWER: All of the parables in Matthew 13 have to do with Israel. It is said ten times in the chapter that Christ is teaching about "the kingdom of heaven," or simply "the kingdom." Now is the "kingdom of heaven" the church? It is not. All of Jewish history tells us that "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God" are two descriptions of the messianic reign of Christ on earth; the Davidic rule of the Lord during the millennium. This in no way can be the church age! I believe the best treatment of this issue is found in my Classic Evangelical Hermeneutics book (Kregel), chapter 17. There, I deal with each parable and explain that Christ is speaking about things not revealed about the kingdom in the OT. I will not take the space here to repeat what I explain in detail in my book, except simply to give the three views about Matthew 13. (1) The Allegorical/Amillennial view. Ellicott says of this: "The interpretation of the parable lies almost on the surface. Here again the sower is the Son of Man; but the seed in this case is not so much the "word," as the Christian society, the Church." (2) New Program of the kingdom: "This view is held by the premillennialist J. Dwight Pentecost and others who claim that there is an added dimension to the kingdom not revealed in the OT. The kingdom would be seen in a new spiritual form, specifically including the church age." (3) To reveal new truths concerning the messianic kingdom: But not including anything about the church age! Toussaint writes: "This view states that the King is giving new revelation concerning the kingdom promised to the Jews. The truths relate to the time of the establishing of the kingdom, the preparation for it, and other such material which had never before been revealed. This approach is best." And I agree! This third view fits the context, and the words of Christ in the chapter. I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch (Feb.,10)

Amillennialists and Matthew 8:10-12

Dr. Couch, what do amillennialists do with Matthew 8:10-12? ANSWER:  They cough, sputter, gag, change the subject, and head out to go to the grocery store! They cannot answer this passage!    Christ is talking about the faith of a Gentile, the centurion at Capernaum. He says "I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel" (v. 10b). Then He adds: "Many [Gentiles] shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (vv. 11-12).    There is no way this (the kingdom of heaven) can be interpreted as the present church age. The "sons of the kingdom" are the Jews who, when the millennial kingdom is established, they reject the Lord, and are cast into outer darkness. Believing Gentiles enter the millennial kingdom. They have trusted Christ during the seven year tribulation period.    It is a proven fact that "the kingdom of heaven, of God" was to the Jews the millennial government of Christ. I have many historical books written by Jewish scholars who make it clear that these expressions were used by the Jews of Christ's day to describe the same. We cannot tamper with, or fudge, on historical evidence! Unfortunately, many of the amils are not good researchers. They have not looked carefully into Jewish history. (I was required three and a half years of church history courses!) This history throws light on the period of the Gospels, and as well, on church history issues. Remember, we must study the Bible in its grammatical/historical, social and customary manner. Without this, we are limited in our hermeneutical grasp of what is happening in the Scriptures. You need my Hermeneutics book! "Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics" (Kregel).    By the way, I heard the other day of the gross ignorance of a Lutheran pastor who said, "Dispensationalism was started by John Darby who then wrote the Scofield Reference Bible." What a terrible lack of training in church history! But that is part of the misunderstanding that we have to deal with!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch

Gnostics Allegorized the Bible

Dr. Couch, didn't the Gnostics allegorize the Bible? ANSWER:  Yes, but the problem with the Gnostics is something else besides allegorical interpretation. Allegorization started way before the Gnostic cults. The biggest issue with them was their secret-ness, their immorality, and their "spiritualizing" the person of Christ. We do not know all that they taught. In fact, each group held to somewhat different beliefs. And, they really came on the scene sometime after the time of Christ. John the apostle seems to be standing against incipient Gnosticism in his letters of I-III John, written about AD 90-95.    To allegorize the Scriptures is treated in detail in my book An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Kregel). The pages are 95-103. The word Gnostic is related to the Greek word ginosko, to know. They believed they had higher spiritual knowledge and knew things that the average person did not know.    Allegorization was expanded and made popular by Augustine. He taught that the Church had become Israel. Thus, the kingdom was the Church here on earth, and, God was finished with the Jews. When he came to the words Jerusalem, or kingdom, he said these words were really about the Church. Charismatics hold to some Gnostic thoughts. Everyone has heard them say, "I don't care what the Bible says, I know what my experience is!" Experience is seen as higher than objective fact in Scripture.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch

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)

Not Supposed to Interpret the Bible

Dr. Couch, I have a man in my Bible class who believes one is not supposed to take the time to interpret the Bible, all one has to do is "renew" the mind and it'll all come to you in understanding. How do you answer this? ANSWER:  You really need my Classical Evangelical Hermeneutic book that spells out all the steps of interpretation, and that explains the important words that shed light on Bible study. The man you are referring to is wooden-headed and down right ignorant. I don't know what to do with these kinds of folks. Sometimes such as these are not worth trying to help because they have made up their minds! He is not attending your class in order to learn but to teach. He wants to hear himself expound what he thinks he knows. He wants to put you down and wow the class with his smarts! He is immature as a baby! He wants all the attention and thinks you are ignorant!    Below is a list of passages that spell out what we are to do in our search to understand the Word of God. We don't simply sit on our ignorance. We have to sweat in order to pursue what the Lord is saying in His Word. We could have no comprehension if the Spirit was not aiding us in fathoming the depth of the Bible, but there is still the human element and the process that we must go through in order to, from the conscious level, grasp what the Scriptures are telling us.    The Greek word "hermeneuo" is used in many of these verses. It is from this word that we get "hermeneutics."        Luke 24:27    John 1:38, 41; 9:7     Acts 9:36; 17:11    1 Timothy 4:13    2 Timothy 2:15; 3:10    Hebrews 7:2        Be careful of what I call those who have a "purest" mentality. They are really very foolish and do not know the Bible as they may claim. They have some kind of legalistic agenda. They bury their heads in the sand and ignore all that the Word of God is saying. I have very little patience with this kind of personality. Do not let him control your class. Make it clear to him by telephone that you do not want him to interrupt the study, and if he plans to do just that, you will ask him to not attend.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch

Teaching Recommendation

Dear Dr. Couch, Believe it or not, our church is willing to have what they call SOLD classes they have been teaching all sorts of things in, to have certain ones of us teach a SOLD series on Prophecy. My part is to be on presenting "Pretribulationism". I have a lot of your books, and other materials, but is there a book or materials that might be helpful that you can recommend? I absolutely love your ministry and the CD's you have been sending have blessed my life and encouraged me greatly! I have been sharing them with my friends and grown children. Thanks, Paul (a website reader) ANSWER:  Well, at least you get the chance to present the biblical position! I highly recommend my book, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Kregel). Especially the Appendix section in which you can compare the interpretation of the Amils and the Dispensationalists on given passages of Scripture. But you need to look at the whole book—it's full of goodies to answer the Covenant guys and the Amils. You will find those who do not take the Word of God at face value cannot hold a candle to what it teaches about Bible prophecy. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch