Hebrew Language and Studies

Dr. Couch, you seem to have a lot of books on the Hebrew language and Hebrew studies. I find few who can translate the language and who understand the grammar of this subject.



ANSWER: You are right. Almost none in my graduate classes continue studying Hebrew. I have some of the most important grammar books and commentaries on Hebrew. I translate several verses each week because I think both Hebrew and Greek is important if I am going to be an engineer of the Scriptures! The books I possess you can hardly find today. I am blessed with a great language library.



I spent three years studying graduate Hebrew with the outstanding scholar, Dr. Merrill F. Unger. What a blessed man! My class went through the book of Zechariah in Hebrew with him. I sat on the front row in order to get all I could from his mind and his heart. I never gave up on his instruction, as many of my classmates did.



Remember, the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT, is indeed the Word of God! It is a blessed privilege to study the Bible in the original languages! Why any student would throw away all the effort of such study, I cannot figure out. More and more, students are giving up on theology and the biblical languages. Such efforts are disappearing. More and more are throwing in the towels on wanting to know the Scriptures. This is a part of the sign of the approaching apostasy taking over our churches and our seminaries.



—Dr. Mal Couch (8/11)

Hebrew Massoretic Text

Dr. Couch, is the Hebrew Massoretic text reliable?



ANSWER: Yes indeed, it certainly is. The ancient Rabbis were very careful to copy and transmit the Old Testament text with great accuracy. If they made copying mistakes they started all over again in order to make sure that no mistakes were allowed to sneak into the new copied work.



The Hebrew scribes of the earliest times take care to be accurate. The work was transferred over to the Talmudic Rabbis from 200-500 AD with continual guarantees that what they copied was not compromised. Jewish scholarship emigrated eastward to Babylon in the second century through the tenth century to make sure that scholarly traditions were maintained in keeping the Old Testament copies accurate. With certainty the Babylonian variants were listed in the R. Kittel edition known as the "Biblia Hebraica" (1929-1937).



In graduate school I cut my teeth on the Kittel edition. There has been almost no question on the Kittel version. Unger writes: "The Massoretes manifested the same spirit of deep loyalty and devotion to the Sacred Scriptures as the inspired and authoritative Word of God, which had been handed down to them, that had been characteristic throughout the centuries of the history of the nation chosen to be the recipients and the custodians of the Bible."



Thanks for asking.



—Dr. Mal Couch (8/11)

Jeremiah in the LXX

Dr. Couch, I have heard that the book of Jeremiah in the LXX is about 1/7 shorter than in our Bibles. Is this true? Where can I get a good source on the issue?



ANSWER: Dr. Charles Feinberg in his Jeremiah commentary has a good discussion on the subject. Check him out on pages 15-16. The liberals deny chapters 50-52 as having been written by Jeremiah. But Dr. Feinberg deals objectively with the problem. He was one of my professors in graduate school. He was one of the most outstanding Hebrew scholars of the last century. (I was blessed to sit under the giants such as Dr. Feinberg.) Today, students in seminaries do not get to study under such outstanding scholars. Only us "old guys" have had that privilege. This is why we are going into an apostasy. Younger guys are not getting the goodies that many of us did in days gone by!



Thanks for asking.

—Dr. Mal Couch (8/11)

Effect in 1 Corinthians 12:10

Dr. Couch, what does "effect" mean in 1 Corinthians 12:10?



ANSWER: It is the Greek word for "work," dunamis. It can be translated "to produce power or results." It reads in many versions: "to another the effecting ..." These are the gifts of the Holy Spirit listed in this context. He is the one producing works coming through the believer.



Thanks for asking. —Dr. Mal Couch (8/11)

Nephilim

Dr. Couch, I still hear Bible teachers saying that the Nephilim in Genesis 6 were a mixture between humans and fallen angels, thus creating a hybrid of strange creatures that were unusual being in early Genesis. What do you think?

ANSWER: For years I have studied these verses from the Hebrew text and am convinced that they are not referring to fallen angels! What is happening is that the two lines, the Godly and the unGodly lines of Seth and Cain, were coming together, by which the line of humans was weakened and degraded, becoming even more sinful.

By good exegesis, and reading carefully chapters 4-6, this view seems to make the most sense. While there are some Bible teachers who hold to the "angel" theory, the outstanding scholars I read hold to the fact that the two lines of Seth and Cain come together, washing down morally and spiritually the Godly line.

I just discovered the great Old Testament respected Jewish Christian scholar, Alfred Edersheim, holds to the coming together of the two lines. He writes:

"The corruption of mankind reached its highest point when even the difference between the Sethites and the Cainites became obliterated by intermarriage between the two parties, and that from sensual motives. We read that 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.' At that time the earth must have been in a great measure peopled, and its state is thus described, 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.'

This means more than the total corruption of our nature, as we should now describe it, and refers to the universal prevalence of open, daring sin, and rebellion against God, brought about when the separation between the Sethites and the Cainites ceased. With the exception of Noah there was none in that generation 'to call upon the name of Jehovah. … The giants (in Hebrew: Nephilim) were 'men of violence, or tyrants,' as Luther renders it, the root of the word meaning, 'to fall upon.'"

All of the above is what I teach from good, solid exegesis! Almost word for word!

The scholarly Jewish Rabbis in the Soncino commentaries hold to the same view—this is not referring to fallen angels. They write:

"There is no trace in Genesis of 'fallen angels' or rebellious angels; and the idea of inter-marriage of angels and human beings is altogether foreign to Hebrew though. The mythological explanation of this passage was in all ages repelled by a large body of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators, though it has been revived by many modern [and liberal teachers]."

There is one Jewish Christian teacher in Texas who holds to the angel theory. But he does so by following others, holding to mythology and not good exegesis from the Bible. Don't follow him blindly! I work with the best of commentators not those who buy into mythology! In fact, I do more Hebrew exegesis than this dear brother! He often does not do good independent exegesis as he should.

Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (6/11)

Hebrews 8:13 on the New Covenant

Dr. Couch, does not Hebrews 8:13 say that the New covenant makes (past tense) the Old (Mosaic) covenant obsolete?

ANSWER: No, not really. Here's how the verse reads in the Greek text.

"In which He (God) is to be saying (Pres. Inf.) 'A New (covenant) He has made old (palaioo, Perf. Act. Ind.).' For whatever is becoming obsolete, failing for age (garasko, Pres. Tense), [is] at hand [eggus] to disappear."

Notice it is God who is making the Mosaic covenant obsolete not the New covenant doing it. The Lord is in charge! He is creating the new Dispensation of grace. God is a Dispensationalist! He is replacing the Old with the New. The church will benefit by the New covenant but we don't fulfill it. Israel will fulfill it when the nation is converted and brought back into the kingdom. Notice I said "brought back into the kingdom." The kingdom first existed under the kingship of David and then Solomon. But it was destroyed with the Civil War and all the kings that followed were not the rulers promised by the Lord. The kingdom is to be restored. The next king is the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Son of David. He will reign and rule just as David and Solomon did, on the earth, in the Promised Holy Land! How do the Covenant Reformed guys miss this?

The great old scholar Nicoll understands dispensationalism and writes:

"In saying New, God has antiquated the first (the Mosaic); and that which is antiquated and growing old is near extinction [literally disappearing]. That is to say, by speaking in the passage quoted in Jeremiah 31, God speaks of a New covenant, He brands the former as old. Thus even in Jeremiah's time the Mosaic covenant was disparaged. The fact that a new was required showed that it was insufficient. It was condemned as antiquated. And that which is antiquated and aged has not much longer to live. 'It has become antiquated is said in Greek in the LXX.' It suggests of utter destruction, abolished!"

I don't know how they do it, but the Covenant and Reformed theologians say we are still under the Law, the Mosaic covenant. We are to keep the Law, they say. They are really ignorant of their Bible!

Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch(6/11)

Wonders in the Sky Above

Dr. Couch, it seems that Acts 2:19-20a is saying that the “wonders in the sky above” all take place “Before the great and glorious Day of the Lord.” Is that what the passage is saying?

ANSWER: Not really. This is why it is imperative that those of us who want to be teachers MUST translate both the Hebrew and Greek texts in order to really understand what is going on in the Bible. Unfortunately, we are not training men today to work the text and be engineers of the Scriptures. We are losing it, and in my opinion, we will never get it back with the present generation.

I've recently been teaching Acts and have done a lot of translation work on Acts 2. “Before the great and glorious Day of the Lord” is important. “Before ...” sounds as if those terrible things happen just prior to the beginning of the Tribulation, the Wrath, the Seven Year Tribulation. But the key is the Greek word “Before” which is the word “Prin.” In Hebrew, where the passage comes from in Joel 2:31, the word is the particle the “Lamed” (the Hebrew letter L) that often means “to, toward.” But here, there is something else going on. The perfect illustration is with Psalm 12:7 which should read: “Silver purified in the workshop AS TO EARTH, or, IN REGARD TO EARTH.” Or, “in relation to earth.”

The passage in Acts 2:19-20 then should read: “I will grant wonders in the sky above, and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, “(Before) IN REFERENCE TO, IN REGARD TO the great and glorious Day of the Lord [which] shall come ...”

In my commentary series, Steven Ger on the passage makes a great statement:
“The new era commenced as the New Covenant began to be fulfilled with Jesus' distribution of His Spirit on Pentecost. This view is careful to recognize that there has been no fulfillment, in any sense, of any portion of the second segment (vv. 19-21) of Joel's prophecy. These astronomic cataclysms are to occur immediately prior to the inauguration of the messianic kingdom. It was obvious to every Jew standing in the Temple … that these signs and wonders were still to be fulfilled. Yet the promise of these cataclysms, cited by Peter, would have been compelling incentive to urge the assembled crowd to positively respond to their messiah.”

In other words, these signs are part of the Day of the Lord, they launch the Day of the Lord, or they certainly begin the Day of the Lord. They are not “outside” of that Day!

I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (6/11)

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

The New American Bible (NAB)

Dr. Couch, there is a new edition of the New American Bible (NAB) that was co-edited by Catholics. Should we be afraid of this version?

ANSWER: I don't think so, but remember, that is why men of the “old school” like myself, took years and years of Hebrew and Greek so that we could be the “watchers” of the translations and call out an alarm if we see the translators messing with the text. This has rarely happened because translators know that there are language scholars looking over their shoulders.

Two changes are mentioned in the report about the new edition of this Bible. One is that they changed the word “holocaust” in Leviticus 6:23 to “burnt offering.” They did this because of the association of the word holocaust with the killing of the 6 million Jews in World War II. That terrible event is called “the holocaust.” But actually, the word “holocaust” is the better word.

The NAS Bible properly translates the Hebrew “burned entirely” which is the best translation of the word. The Rabbis in the Greek translation of the OT, in the Septuagint (LXX), used the word “holocaustosai” or “holocaust.” Or, “burnt entirely” thus “burnt offering.” To leave the word in the English “holocaust” would have been fine.

Then in Isaiah 7:14 they translated the Hebrew word Almah “young woman” instead of virgin as it is in most versions. Actually, “young woman” is the better translation. Technically speaking, the word Bethulah is the closest word for virgin in Hebrew. However, the Rabbis who translated the Greek Septuagint (written about 300+ BC) felt that the word had a strong connotation for “virgin” and translated the word from the Greek “parthenos” or “virgin.”

In other words, the Rabbis felt that this was the intention of Isaiah in this verse, to flag the fact that the Messiah's mother would be a virgin and by a miracle give birth to the Son of God. The word Almah has many connotations to it. It implies (1) a young woman of marriageable age, (2) a teenager, (3) a veiled one unmarried girl, who indeed (4) was technically a virgin.

Dr. Luke also pointed out in his Gospel that Mary was a virgin. He writes that the angel Gabriel came to a “virgin (parthenos) engaged to Joseph” (Luke 1:27). And Mary confessed that she “knew not a man” (v. 34). The English says that she uttered the words “since I am a virgin.” But this is a free translation from the Greek text that actually reads “since a man I know not.” [For a complete treatment on this see my commentary on Luke in the 21st Century Commentary Set.]

We don't want to be paranoid but we do want to be cautious. Error can slip into your churches very easily. This is why we need men who can check these changes out and give an okay on what is happening to us theologically.

—Dr. Mal Couch (3/11)

Adding Words to Verses

Dr. Couch, is there not confusion when words are added to verses, even to make those verses more clear? Does this not confuse people who are trying to figure out what the Bible is saying? They may think that someone is tampering with the Bible. ANSWER:  This points to the fact that pastors, and all Bible teachers, are teachers of the Word when they truly know the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek text. It must be remembered that when we read a Bible translation that it has limitations. The Greek (or Hebrew) grammar expands the meaning. There are tenses, moods, cases, grammar, voices, persons, and number. And if the teacher does not expand these elements and show to the reader how they work in translation, the student is short-changed and does not get precisely what the Bible is saying. That is why when I was coming up in the ranks no one who was going to be a pastor, or a Bible teacher, failed to study Hebrew and Greek in order to fully understand what the Bible verses were saying.    To expand Bible verses according to the grammar is important. No one would dare enter the pulpit unless he had those skills. Those skills are now dying and being forgotten. The layman has to be told that he must trust the scholar to some degree or he will not get the full picture of what a passage is teaching and saying by the Holy Spirit.    Laymen can get pretty far down the road by purchasing good commentaries and Bible reference material.    We really do the same thing when it comes to science. Behind the working of your car are the engineers and scientists who designed and put the car together on the basis of science, otherwise, you don't have a car! You trust that scientist when you turn the key on. Science has made the car work. The same with Bible study, in fact, theology used to be called "the Queen of the Sciences" because so much scientific study goes into Bible study: History, geography, word origins, grammar, sociology, etc.    Here is an illustration that may get the point across: the translation of John 3:16: "For thus, loved the God the world (culture), for this reason, the Son, the only born One, He gave, in order that whoever, the one who is believing into Him, should himself not be destroyed, but that he might possess life eternal."    When I decided to go into the ministry I was told that my bachelors degree should be Social Science because it would give me these disciplines as a background for Bible study. And this was right. Those disciplines helped me immensely.    I hope this helps.    Thank you, Dr. Mal Couch (1/11)

Jewish People in Christ's day and the rapture

Dr. Couch, I have two questions: The Jews who accepted Christ when He was ministering, as shown in the Gospels, would they have become part of the church and then been raptured if that event had taken place? And, I was disappointed to hear you say that the book of John was written to the Gentiles. I understood it was written to the Jews with information for Christians today. What do you say? ANSWER:  All of those who came to Christ during His ministry on earth were placed into His spiritual body, the body of Christ, thus they became part of the church at Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And yes, of course, they would have been raptured.    You said you were disappointed that I said the book of John was written for Gentiles, and not for the Jews. You need not listen to me but study for yourself what the book of John shows us. First of all, I have translated the entire book of John in Greek, and in graduate school had several courses on that book. You won't find any other scholars who have had that much exposure and study in John. So I know what I'm talking about, but as I say, study the book yourself.    The way we know it was written to Gentiles is because of the many passages where words are translated for a Gentile audience to understand. For example:    "The Law was given through Moses ..." (John 1:17) The Jews knew this; Gentiles may not have.    "The word Rabbi means Teacher ..." (1:38).    "Messiah (Maschioch) is translated as the Christ (Christos) ..." (1:41).    "Cephas which is translated as Peter ..." (1:42).    "Siloam which is translated as Sent ..." (9:7).    "In Hebrew, Rabboni which means Teacher ..." (20:16).    "The ravine of Kidron, where there was a garden ..." (18:1). Most Jews knew this.    The Greek word "translate" is a word that means "to expound, explain, interpret, to translate from a foreign tongue." It comes from the Greek word "Hermes" who was the god of language, speech, writing, and eloquence. The word was transferred into the Greek language meaning to "interpret."    Because the book was aimed at the Gentiles does not mean that the Jews were excluded from reading it. They were not. Also, remember that old John in his late life was the pastor of the church at Ephesus, thus it would make sense that he would write a book that his Gentile audience could understand.    I studied the book of John in Greek at the university 51 years ago, and then again (in Greek) 49 years ago. Then I took it in English Bible in graduate school about 50 years ago. I've been around the block with the book of John!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (10/11)

Resurrection and the Rapture

Dr. Couch, someone has said the word "resurrection" in Philippians 3:11 may refer to the rapture of the church. What do you say? ANSWER:  This word "resurrection" here is used only one time in the NT. It is a tri-pound Greek word "out-up-stand" or "out-resurrection." This could not refer to the rapture for several reasons. First it follows Paul's discussion of Christ's resurrection from the grave in verse 10. "That I might know Him, the power of His resurrection ..."    While it is true that the resurrection of church saints takes place at around the same time as the rapture, they are two distinct happenings. Paul writes: when the trumpet sounds "the dead in Christ shall rise first and then we who are alive shall be caught up (raptured) together with them" (1 Thess. 4:16-17). The rapture is not a resurrection though, for the church, they will happen nearly at the same time, when the trumpet sounds.    Also, in Philippians 3:11 Paul speaks of "the resurrection from the dead." The rapture does not take us from "the dead." We are alive when it happens!    The apostle Paul often makes tri-pound or compound new words for emphasis. And this is what he does here in 3:11. But too, it comes right after Paul's discussion of Christ's resurrection in verse 10.    Nicoll writes "The Resurrection is the apostle's goal, for it will mean perfect, unbroken knowledge of Christ and fellowship with Him."    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (11/10)

The Author of the Faith

Dr. Couch, what does it mean in Hebrews 12:2 when it calls Christ the Author of The Faith? ANSWER:  This is a bad translation. This is why I took about 40 hours of graduate Greek in order to get it straight, as to what the Bible was saying. The NT IS Greek and without understanding the language we are out to lunch in trying to interpret the Word of God.    The Greek word is "archagos." The word is better translated "leader." You can see the word Arch, or "top one, the highest one."    The great grammarians Balz & Schneider have a lot to say about this word. "God exalted [Christ] at His right hand as Leader and Savior" (Acts 5:31). "The predication 'Leader and Savior' is plainly near to Heb. 2:10, 'pioneer of their salvation.'" "Heb. 2:10 has: 'Make the Leader who delivers them perfect through sufferings.'" "Jesus' function as Leader results from the cross and the resurrection from the dead (13:20)." "God effects faith in Jesus as the Leader."    Ger adds: "Jesus is described here with two complementary designations. He is the "archegos," "the champion," "the leader," the pioneering source and heroic author of faith. This is a rare messianic title that is used by the author of Hebrews in 2:10 and 12:2 and only in additional two times in the New Testament in Acts (3:15; 5:31). ... His magnificent accomplishment, now serves as the very embodiment of faith itself."    The writer of Hebrews seems to be pulling this name from Jeremiah 30:21. The NAS there calls the Messiah "the Leader." It is the Hebrew word Ay'Der. It sometimes is translated as Prince, or "Mighty, Splendid One." Jeremiah 30:21 reads: "And their Leader shall be one of them [the Jews in the restoration]."    The word is used of God in Psalm 8:2. "O Lord, our Lord, How GLORIOUS is You Name in all the earth, who has displayed Your splendor above the heavens!"     The Hebrew word Ay'Der is related to other Hebrew words that are translated: "splendor, noble." The word can describe a splendid robe of a king!    Thus, on Hebrews 12:2 we might say: "Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Glorious Splendid Leader of THE FAITH, who for the joy set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame [of it], and has [now] sat down at the right hand of the throne of God," waiting for the Lord to subdue His enemies (Psa. 110:1-2).    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (8/10)

The Greek Case System

Dr. Couch, when did the eight noun case system in Greek fall out of favor and give way to the six case system? And what does this have to do with studying Greek? ANSWER:  This has nothing to do with the study of Greek. When I was taking beginning Greek fifty years ago in college, the six case system was used by some Greek textbooks. The textbook I was using had the eight case system. (No big deal!) I can translate just as well with the six system as I can with the eight system. I prefer the eight because that was what I learned Greek with, but in reality it does not mean that much. The eight case system is a little clearer in my opinion. We create a system of learning Greek as we analyze the language. In fact, that is what we do as we deal with all languages. All languages are made clear by our study.    I can learn any language because I understand the basic principles that govern how all languages work. I had more Greek in college and graduate school hours than anyone you will speak with. And I translate every week verses in Hebrew and in Greek. I love the study of the biblical languages. The study of the biblical languages gives to us our systematic theology. I am now working on a Messianic Systematic Theology using comments and helps from the orthodox Jews scholars. It is thrilling to see how both the OT and the NT reveals to us the revelation of the Lord.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Apr., 10)

Unity of Christ and the Father while on the Cross

Dr. Couch, it seems the unity or immutability of God is destroyed by the so-called separation of Christ from the Father when He was on the cross. Most Bible teachers seem to just give the usual standard answer and do not work the biblical text on giving the right answer. I know you work the languages, so I'm asking you what the passage (Matt. 27:46) is really saying from the Hebrew and Greek languages. What do you think? ANSWER:  The passage reads, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Christ is quoting Psalm 22:1. The Hebrew word for "forsaken" in Psalm 22:1 is A'Zav with the meaning of "to abandon, to take away one's favor," with the idea: "To come up to someone, see a need, and walk away from that need." In Greek the word "forsake" is egkataleipo. It is in an Aorist form and carries the idea "to desert," to "leave one in straits, to leave one helpless, to leave one behind."    The persons in the Trinity did not cut ties when Christ died, and took upon Himself our sins, but the heavenly Father left the Son to face the pain of crucifixion, left Him in the circumstances of the death He was facing. The Father and Son were not breaking their Trinity relationship. They, along with the Holy Spirit, remained as joined as the three persons in the Godhead: Father, Son, and Spirit. They have an eternal relationship that cannot be broken.    The incarnation of Christ is a mystery and it is difficult to understand what happened in Christ's death on the cross. It cannot be said that God died, so His death is indeed difficult to explain! Some argue that only the physical of the Lord actually died. And even with that, we know that Christ did not undergo decay in His body. This is made clear from Psalm 22:10: "Neither will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay." As deity the Lord did not "disappear." For He said prophetically "My flesh also will dwell securely. For You will not abandon My soul to Sheol [to the grave]" (vv. 9b-10a).    Psalm 22:11 seems to say that Christ, in His death, remained conscience just as we will when we pass. "In Your presence is fullness of joy; in Your right hand there are pleasures forever." In other words, the Lord remained in His relationship, with joy and comfort, with the heavenly Father when He physically died! A lot of this is a mystery but what I've written seems to make sense biblically.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch

Translation of Joel 3:21

Dr. Couch, what is going on in the translation of Joel 3:21? There is a different word used: "I will acquit," or "I will pardon," or "I will avenge." Which word should be used? ANSWER:  The Rabbis translate this as "I will hold as innocent their blood that I have not held as innocent." The point of the passage is that God has not avenged the Jews because of all the terrible treatment they experienced from the Egyptians and the Edomites, as mentioned in verse 19. But He will someday!    Unger prefers "avenged" and says about this word NaCHaT: "The Lord had not cleansed. Their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned, I will pardon." "Zion will have come into salvation and fellowship with her Redeemer [in the future kingdom], and her Redeemer will make His dwelling place with her."    In the Hebrew this verb is a Piel form and should be translated "I will definitely, intensely avenge" Israel. God is going to do this someday when Israel is being blessed in the kingdom with the Messiah reigning! We are getting closer to this great Day! He is coming soon.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Jan., 10)

Liberal Agenda Regarding Satan

Dr. Couch, I've heard that some Bible versions have changed the name Lucifer to "the morning star." Is this not a liberal ploy to tamper with the Bible and remove one of the names of Satan? ANSWER:  While I don't agree with the use of Inclusive Language in some of the modern versions, the issue of this name of Satan is not a liberal move. I happen to know almost all of the translators of our newer Bible versions, and most of these men came from conservative, Evangelical seminaries. Here's how the new translations came about: 1. Each translator came up with a new translation from the Hebrew text of the OT. 2. Then a committee of strong conservative, Evangelical, reliable scholars, came together and worked through the material. 3. No one was telling them (from a liberal perspective) what to write. There were checks and balances going on in the final version. The name Lucifer in the older versions is actually a Latin word that comes from the Hebrew of the passage of Isaiah 14:12. The NASB reads "O star of the morning, son of the dawn!" The older versions used Lucifer which means "the light bearer." The old, reliable and conservative Hebrew scholar (one of my Hebrew teachers), Dr. Merrill F. Unger, says: "Lucifer ("helel") "daystar, shining one", and "son of the morning" (shahar). Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "lightbearer." The title truly belongs to Christ in Rev. 22:16, "the bright and morning star," by virtue of His being the Creator. But the sinless angels of light, His first creatures—including the greatest of them, who later became Satan—were also called "morning stars" (Job 38:7), because they were resplendent, unfallen creatures of light." Unger adds: "How Lucifer (the daystar or the shining one) became Satan (the opposer of God) and how he fell and was cut down to the ground are revealed in verses 13-14. The five "I wills" follow ..."    Words can have several expressions and meanings, and to use them, is not about liberalism. It is the translators attempting to give us the clearest meanings of the words.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Jan., 10)

Problems in the Church

Dr. Couch, the problems go on in the church I'm involved in. What do I do? ANSWER  You mentioned the terrible confusion in the teaching there in the country where you live. The leaders do not know what they believe and they are mixing kingdom and church issues because of their blindness and ignorance of the Bible. It amazes me how we want science to be precise but we are ready to compromise when it comes to the "science" of interpretation of the biblical texts. What foolishness and blindness!    Someone will say, what do you mean by science of the Bible? They fail to realize that we start with the grammar of Scripture, and we must be "scientifically accurate when approaching the interpretative issues. Science means we also must interpret by logic, history, the social background of the Bible, etc. If we don't, we will not understand what's going on in the passages of Scripture. It is the Holy Spirit who inspired the authors in their usage of the right grammar of the Hebrew and Greek texts. And the Bible has a setting, a social, historic setting, which we must understand in order to be exegetes of the Word. I must follow the interpretative lead of the Holy Spirit. I can't be sloppy in my study of the Bible.    You mentioned that the leaders of the church could not identify whether they were amill, premill, postmill, Arminian or Calvinistic in their understanding of the Bible. And they knew nothing about the clear passages on the rapture of the church, which fouled up their total understanding and teaching of the book of Revelation. And these are teaching leaders?    I predicted many years ago we'd be in this mess once the leaders of the churches abandoned systematic theology and went to "feel good" messages, entertainment and emotion. And sure enough, I was correct!    Don't forget that Paul predicted the apostasy we are now in. He wrote: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound (healthy) doctrine (not feel good messages), but wanting to have their ears ticked (wanting entertainment), they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away from the truth, and will turn aside to myths (lies)" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Dec., 09)

Struggling with Eternal Security

Dr. Couch, I believe in eternal security but I have problems with Matthew 5:22 where Jesus said "... and whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." How do you answer? – from England ANSWER:  I really appreciate your questions, but you must interpret the Bible by context not by the ping pong method, where you bounce all over the place and automatically apply verses to the church. This is the Sermon on the Mount where Christ is speaking specifically to the Jews and the problems they had in the way they mistreated others.    Remember, we must interpret the Bible by context and by the Greek text, not by the English. "Hell" is a bad translation that is why Bible teachers need to take Greek in order to understand all that is happening in Scripture. I have had more Greek than any Bible teacher you'll talk with. I translate almost everyday. In this passage "hell" is Geenna or Gehenna, referring to the burning garbage dump outside of the city of Jerusalem that became a symbol of judgment. Yes, often it was symbolic of hell's fires but it can, in context, often just be referring to a judgment.    Christ is addressing how the Jews mistreated each other with their mouth—with their criticisms. Note the progression in verse 22. If one is angry with his brother he should be brought before the synagogue court and be judged. If one goes further and calls his brother Raca (or numb skull, stupid) he is to be brought before the supreme court or the Sanhedrin and be judged. But if one says to his brother that he is a fool, he receives the harshest judgment and was to be cast into Gehenna, the burning garbage dump! Now can you imagine the fear this brought to the hearts of the Jews? In their relationships with others they were terribly critical, hurt others with the mouth, and continued to destroy the relationships by harsh words! The Jews paid no attention to this mistreatment. Christ brought it to their attention. The point is not about a doctrinal or theological judgment but about the issue of mistreatment of others.    This was meant to awaken the Jews in the harshness of their human relationships.    Thanks for asking, and, I hope this helps.    Dr. Mal Couch (Dec., 09)

Bible Translation Recommendation

Dr. Couch, what Bible translation do you recommend? ANSWER:   I'm often asked about the NIV. It is more of a freewheeling or almost a paraphrase, and therefore I do not recommend it. I prefer the NAS because, as I translate from the Hebrew and Greek, I find it the closest to the original languages, and therefore the best and the most reliable. For Christmas gifts one may consider an NAS version with the Scofield Notes. This really can be helpful for new, young Bible students.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (September 2009)