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)

Revelation 11

Dr. Couch, what is going on in Revelation 11?

ANSWER: To measure the temple means that God is about to do something with it. There will be a rebuilt temple in the messianic kingdom when Christ returns. This measuring is telling us that the Lord is going to restore the activity in the temple during that period.

The second half of the tribulation is described with the "forty-two months" as mentioned in v. 2. The tribulation lasts seven years. The two witnesses are given authority to testify by doing incredible things on the earth. The entire world apparently will see those things. When the two witnesses are killed the whole world sees their dead bodies. See verse 9. This would have to be by television.
Two witnesses are important because the Old Testament speaks of the necessity of two witnesses in order to confirm a testimony. See Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Num. 35:30.
You mentioned the fact that there are many views about chapter 11 but more than likely they do not take the Bible literally. By taking it literally, we come to the right answers.

The "kingdom of the world" would be the antichrist's kingdom mentioned in Dan. 7:23. Christ's kingdom will replace it when He comes back.

Don't listen or read the covenant guys. Only premillennialists and dispensationalists take the Bible at fact value. The others cannot be trusted. Thanks for asking. --Dr. Mal Couch (3/12)

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 Magi

Dr. Couch, who were the magi? Were they "three kings of Orient"? Were they three races, as sometimes pictured?

ANSWER: We have really fouled up the magi story! First of all, we do not know that they were "three" in number; that idea comes from the fact that they brought three precious items to the baby Jesus—gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt. 2:11). (This is a fascinating story in itself!) If anything in regard to their race, they would have been Babylonian for that is where we get the idea for the magi.

The Greek word magos in the text is plural—magoi. The word means "the great ones." The term is related to the words "majestic, magnanimous." It is referring to the astronomers, astrologers of Babylon. They probably came from Shushan, the royal city of Babylon, or, possibly from Ur.

How did they know they were seeking the King of Israel, and what was the star they saw, while they were residing in the east? More than likely they had read the cryptic prophecy in Numbers 24:17 which says: "I see him, but not right now, I behold him, but he is not near. A star shall come forth from Jacob, and a scepter shall rise from Israel, and shall crush the head of Moab." (The people of Moab were the most violent enemies of Israel at that time.)

From their vantage point, looking west, they saw the star standing over Israel. This was a miracle star that God put in the heavens to announce the arrival of His Messiah, the anointed Ruler of the world!

How did the magi find this passage? We must remember that they were astronomer/astrologers who belonged to that school in Babylon. We must also remember that Daniel (over 400 years before) was made the dean of that university when he was ruling in Babylon. We read, "King Nebuchadnezzar … promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts, and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and … over all the wise men of Babylon" (Dan. 2:48). More than likely then, Daniel placed in their library the Torah scrolls of Moses. Since these men saw the star over the vicinity of Israel, they went into the library and found the Jewish scrolls and began to read through them. When they found the passage, and put together the vision of the star, they calculated that the Messiah (the King) was born. I believe they continued to read and discovered that the One being born was the Son of God. They truly believed in Him and came to worship Him with a genuine faith and trust, not simply doing a political homage to the birth of a politician.

On Numbers 24:17 Unger writes: "The 'Scepter' envisions the Lord coming to rule the earth as absolute King and Lord (Rev. 19:16). The 'Scepter' is owned first in Zion and extends to the ends of the earth when Shiloh comes (Gen. 49:10)."

Jesus did not come to reign in our hearts! He will someday be the King ruling over Israel and over the entire world in a literal, historic way, not in some allegorical, "spiritualized" way, as the covenant guys see it. King Herod got it right. He knew that the Messiah could replace him as ruler. Even a pagan king understood literal language over what some allegorical theologians wrongly teach today!

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

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)

Real and True Jews

Dr. Couch, what is a "real" or "true" Jew, as mentioned by some translations (such as the RSV) on Romans 2:28-29?  It would seem to me that a Jew is a Jew, and all Jews would be real or true by birth. ANSWER:  The translators of the NAS do not add the words "real" or "true" to the passage. It simply reads: "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not be the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."    The amillennial and covenant theologians wrongly think that Paul is saying that God is finished with the Jews as a people. But, they argue, that Gentiles are now Jews in spirit and have replaced Israel as the people of God.    But they completely miss Paul's point. This entire section begins with verse 17 where we see Paul is addressing the Jewish people. He starts off: "But if you bear the name Jew, and rely upon the Law and boast in God, ..." Paul continues the "You Jews ..." through almost the entire section. "You who boast in the Law ..." "Circumcision is of value, if you ..." Paul continues his argument though he changes to the third person from verses 27-29, but his point is the same.    The Jews were trying to say they were favored with God simply because they were Jews by birth. This is not true. They had to be "believing Jews," as Jews who were trusting in God, and, who were embracing Christ when they realized that He was their Messiah, and that He had died for their sins. Otherwise, simply being a Jew by birth, and being circumcised as a Jew, meant nothing!    Circumcision was of value if they kept the Law. If they did not keep the Law, but were transgressors, then "your circumcision meant nothing … it became uncircumcision" (v. 25). The physical Jew had to be a believing Jew, "one inwardly" (v. 29) and one who was circumcised in the heart not simply outwardly.    God still has promises and plans for the physical Jew, the one who is of the generation of Jews. But too, they had to be believing Jews, if not, they were not saved. There are still advantages for the people of Israel (3:1-2) but if they do not trust God "their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?" (v. 3).  No, of course not! "May it never be!" (v. 4).    Paul makes an important and final point on the subject in 11:28. "From the standpoint of the gospel they (the Jews) are enemies (the Jews) for your sake (the Gentiles), but from the standpoint of God's choice (His election) they (the Jews) are beloved (in His eyes) for the sake of the (Patriarchal) fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob); for the gifts (of God) and (His) calling (His election) are irrevocable (unchangeable)."    God has called forth the Jews for His purposes and He will not go back on His promises!    Woodrow Kroll adds:    "Paul says that two things are necessary to be truly Jewish: (1) to be born of Abraham through Isaac (that circumcision that is outward in the flesh); and (2) to be spiritually in tune with Abraham's God (that circumcision that is inward in the heart or spirit). As the apostle Paul is using the word, no one can claim to be Jewish who is not born of Abraham through his son Isaac. But to the requirement of the circumcision of the heart. … The only true Jew is one who is a Jew by race and a believer by God's grace. Thus Paul concludes that mere physical birth alone cannot make a Jew righteous." (Mal Couch, gen. ed. The Book of Romans. Woodrow Kroll. AMG, 35-36)    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (12/10)

Elect

Dr. Couch, the doctrine of election is an awesome truth. What does the word "elect" mean? ANSWER:  The Hebrew word for "elect" is Bah' Char and means "elect" or "chosen."    (A) In a corporate sense the nation of Israel is chosen even though individually the Jews have sinned in that they have not accepted their own promised Messiah. God's promises still remain—the Jews will someday turn to Christ and be back in the good graces of the Lord once more. The Jewish people are "chosen" through the Abrahamic covenant (Psa. 105:8-11). The Abrahamic covenant was confirmed "to Jacob for an everlasting covenant, saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion of your inheritance." Notice that the giving of the land is the sign of that covenant. It belongs to the Jews as a perpetual inheritance. The foolish covenant guys (allegorists) try to say that the land no longer belongs to the Jewish people. They have not read their Bible!    God's chosen ones, with a shout of joy" were given "the lands of the nations, that they might take possession of the fruit of the peoples' labor. … Praise the Lord!" (vv. 42-45). As the "chosen ones" they will someday receive prosperity (106:5).    (B) There are two classes of the angelic host. There are those who are joined to the devil; they belong to him (Matt. 25:41). They were cast forth from heaven when he fell. But there are those who did not leave their position with the Lord. They are the "holy" angels (Luke 9:26), and the elect or chosen angels (1 Tim. 5:21).  Then there are the believers who are the elect of the Lord. "... just as He chose us ..." (Eph. 1:4). The Greek word here is eklego which means "to out call." Or, "to call out." We can call this word also "to elect." This election took place before "the casting down of the world," or "before the foundation of the world" (v. 4). The result of this calling would make us "holy and blameless" because we are now placed into the holy Son of God—this is our new position! This includes also His predestination which means "to before encircle," or "to put a fence around." The word is "pro-orizo" in Greek.The word of God is so clear and makes such sense when we let it just speak to us! It is not complicated!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (12/10)

Christ the King

Dr. Couch, is Christ the "king" over the church, as might be hinted at in Revelation 1:6? ANSWER: This passages says that the church believers are "a kingdom, priests to [Christ's] God and Father." We are "a" kingdom but not "the" kingdom, i.e., the Millennial earthly reign of Christ over the nation of Israel! As priests, we represent God to others, and others to God. But this does not make Christ our King as He will be when He rules and reigns over the kingdom of His earthly father David. This idea leads some to say "He is king in our hearts," a concept the Bible does not bring forth. I have practiced in my interpretative life to try to speak only where the Bible speaks and not to make a leap to something that it does not put forward. Where the Bible speaks, I speak; where it does not speak, I don't speak! Over domestic relations Christ is the head of the husband, and the husband is the head of the woman (1 Cor. 11:3). Christ is said in several places to be Head of "all things" (Co. 2:10; Eph. 1:22) and He is head of the church (4:15; Col. 1:18). But the Bible does not say He is the king over the church. The idea of a king has a specific picture in mind. It implies a certain kingship rule that is not seen in the idea of "the body of Christ" with Him as its Head! I care less what the Covenant theologians think; I am not out to impress or to placate them. I am not out to compromise with them on their view of the kingdom. I will not do what they do, and that is, leap to an idea where the Word of God does not leap! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch (11/10)

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)

A.W. Pink

Dr. Couch, what do you think of A.W. Pink? I understand he was a dispensationalist early on but became a full-blown covenant guy later. ANSWER:  Pink went early to Moody Bible Institute but thought he knew so much that he left after one semester. He was a know-it-all who rubbed people the wrong way. He could never get a lasting pastorate and ended up rejected by almost everyone. I read his biography and find that he just thought too much of himself. At the last of his life he became very isolated. He did some good spiritual work in a little paper he published but it was unfortunate that no one could tell him anything. In some ways I feel sorry for him. God used him but he cut his own ties with people he could have greatly inspired.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (9/10)

Spiritual Israel

Dr. Couch, some of the Covenant guys use Galatians 6:16 to prove that the church is now spiritual Israel. How do you counter that position? ANSWER:  By doing good Greek grammar work. If one translates the passage and looks carefully, this view cannot be imposed upon the verse. In the Greek text it reads:    "And to those who will walk with this canon (rule), peace upon them, and mercy, and [peace and mercy be] upon the Israel of the God."    "Walk" is the Greek verb stoicheo. It can be translated "proceed in order," or "direct one's life to live this way." It is a Future Tense. It refers back to Paul's audience who are Gentiles who have been fooled by the legalists who are trying to destroy the simplicity of the gospel. We know this from verse 13 where Paul mentions the fact that the circumcised (the Jews) are trying to have the Gentiles believers circumcised physically in the flesh in order to conform to Jewish regulations.    In verse 16 Paul then goes to another "and" (kai), and writes: "And upon the Israel of God."    "And upon them" (the Gentile believers), "and upon the Israel of God." He uses the same preposition "upon (epi)" and then "upon (epi)." The first "upon" is about the Gentiles, the second "upon" is about the Jews, the Israel of God!    The "peace and mercy" would be understood with the "upon them ..." Thus, "peace and mercy" upon the Gentile believers and "peace and mercy" upon the Israel of God. More than likely, Paul is saying peace and mercy upon believing Jews, though he could be wishing the same upon the Jews who had not yet come to Christ. But the apostle is certainly not calling "the Israel of God" the Gentile church! In my Galatians commentary I write:    "Paul has been speaking throughout this epistle to the Galatian Gentiles who are now one in Christ. Yet because of his special love for the Jewish believers, he gives them a special and separate reference in this passage. 'The Israel of God' is not a reference to the church in the broad sense, or to the Gentiles. Some believe the church has replaced Israel, so such a reference would have to be to those in Christ, the church itself. However, nowhere is the church ever called Israel. This term is used exclusively for the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."    Do not listen to the Covenant guys. They have an agenda. They do not allow the Bible to explain itself. They impose an amillennial, allegorical interpretation upon the text to make their point.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (May., 10)

Psalm 69

Dr. Couch, is Psalm 69:35-36 a messianic kingdom passage? ANSWER:  Yes, indeed! The verses speak of God saving Zion, which is a reference to the city of Jerusalem, and/or the nation of Israel itself. He will build up the cities of Judah, "that the Jews may dwell there and possess it." This is a picture of prosperity and safety for the Jewish people. It shows the finality of God's blessings upon the nation, which will be at peace when the Messiah is reigning.    The seed of the Lord's servants will inherit the city, "and those who love His name will dwell in it." I generally come to a conclusion about a passage after studying it or translating it from the Hebrew or Greek. After I looked at the verses I checked Unger who says the same thing. He writes "Universal praise is to rise up to Him in the Kingdom age, for God will save Zion (Psalm 51:18; Zech. 12:1-5; Rom. 11:26-35) and build the cities of Judah. That 'the humble and the poor, the delivered godly remnant, will dwell there (permanently), and have it in possession, as well as their descendants (Isa. 65:9-10)."    The orthodox Jewish Rabbis certainly hold the same thing. We're in good company with them. They say, this has to do with the "coming redemption of Zion (cf. Isa. 44:23)." For the Lord "will redeem us for the sake of His lovingkindness."    It is not sad that the poor amill Covenant guys never see the blessings of the kingdom mentioned in the Word of God? They remain in their ignorance distorting the Scriptures and missing all of the great messianic truths of His Word!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Apr., 10)

Covenant Theology and Removing Israel

Dr. Couch, why do the covenant guys try to get rid of the nation of Israel in God's plans? ANSWER:  I'm not saying they are demon possessed but it is a satanic ploy to deny God's future workings with the Jewish people. And, the covenant guys clearly do not use plain, normal interpretation of the Scriptures when they study the Bible. To them, the church is "Israel." How can they do that?    The Lord says "The remnant of Jacob (Israel) will be among the nations, among many peoples. ... the remnant of Jacob will be among many peoples like dew from the Lord, like showers on vegetation (Micah 5:7-8). And "You will give truth to Jacob and unchanging love to Abraham, which You did swear to our forefathers from the days of old" (7:20). The Lord is not finished with Israel. His promises do not change! He has already begun to bring the Jews from around the world back to the Holy Land! We are living in the period of a great miracle. God is winding down His work with the Gentiles and the church and beginning to restore His work with His earthly people.    You need my book TO THE JEWS FIRST ... People reading it find it a fascinating book! Thanks for asking.    -- Dr. Mal Couch (Mar., 10)

The Tree of Life and Removal of Names in the Book.

Dr. Couch, I am confused on the issue of the Tree of Life and the removal of the names of those who add or take away what is written in the book of Revelation. Can you help me? ANSWER:  I have the most complete answer to this issue of any source in my Handbook to the Book of Revelation (Kregel). I have discovered the secret of what is going on in 22:18-19 for all those who are interested.    The book has a great endorsement from Dr. John F. Walvoord before he passed away in 2002. He said "It is an outstanding contribution to the literature on this important book of the Bible." This is not a commentary per se but it is more of a theology of Revelation. Others joined me in producing the volume, such as Dr. Larry Crutchfield, Dr. Harold Foos, and Dr. Robert Lightner.    I tie together a lot of Scriptures that help us understand the issue of the Tree of Life and those who deny the writing of Revelation. Also, I have a lot of rabbinical quotes that show they studied the book of Revelation and basically saw the premillennial stamp on the book. This will shock our covenant and amillennial friends. Those of us who take Revelation basically literal are in good company with the orthodox Rabbis who also take prophecy literal! For example, by their calculations the orthodox Rabbis saw and agreed with the fact that the tribulation would be a seven year event, by their correct figuring of Daniel's Seventy Weeks in Daniel 7. They also held to the 1000 year millennial Kingdom. Every one reading this needs the Handbook!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch

God's Master Plan

Dr. Couch, the covenant theologians say that God's master plan is about salvation almost exclusively. Whereas dispensationalists see many issues in the Scriptures are honored with glory, not simply salvation. Is this right? ANSWER:  It is true that God's work in salvation, and in the Church, does indeed bring Him glory. But all of history has many conclusions that give Him honor, along with the issue of salvation. Dispensationalists can point to many, many things whereby God will be glorified, even more than the issue of salvation.    Charles Ryrie points out in his book Dispensationalism, that the founder of covenant theology, Cocceius, "makes the three covenants of this system, the basis, and background, and substance of all God's dealings with man for his redemption." In other words, redemption, and salvation, is the main, if not the exclusive, work of God in history. While salvation is certainly important, God's plan has more to it whereby He receives glory! Below is a list:    The Law given by Moses "came with glory" (2 Cor. 3:7).    Moses' face shown with glory when he descended from the mountain (2 Cor. 3:7b).    The gospel itself gives the light of "the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:4).    The grace of the gospel causes the "giving of thanks to abound to God's glory (v. 15).     Paul's tribulations bring to the believer glory (Eph. 3:13).     Because of the Church, Christ receives glory (v. 21).     The Father receives glory (Phil. 4:20).     We all with appear with Christ in glory (Col. 1:27; 3:4).     Moses received glory (Heb. 3:3).     Christ will receive glory in His future appearing (1 Pet. 1:7).     In the tribulation period, the angelic beings will receive glory (Rev. 4:9).     God as Creator will receive glory (v. 11).     Because of His messianic, Kingly position, with power and riches, Christ will receive glory (Rev. 5:12, 13; 7:12; 11:13; 14:7).     The rulers entering the new earth will bring in their glory (Rev. 21:24).     The word of God is glorious (Acts 13:48).     After Babylon the Harlot is destroyed God receives glory (Rev. 18:1).     Because of God's power and wrath in the tribulation, the heavenly temple is filled  with smoke "from the glory of God" (15:5-8).    God's plan of history brings Him glory, even above the issue of human salvation!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Oct., 09)

Covenant Theology and the Jews

Dr. Couch, I agree with what you are saying about how covenant theology really destroys the scope of the Bible and God's plans for Israel. I do not see how they say God is through with the Jews. How do you answer this issue?

ANSWER: There are no verses that are so clear as Jeremiah 31:35-37 that show that God will never cast away the Jewish people in His plans and purposes. The covenant guys say that the church takes up the blessings promised to Israel, and that God is through with the Jews! It is my opinion that with evil intent many of the covenant guys, past and present, are anti-Semitic. And that includes some of the older theologians who just want to get rid of the Jewish people! How could these verses be any clearer?

Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun for light by day,
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars
For light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The Lord of hosts is His name:
"If this fixed order departs from Me," declares the Lord,
"Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease
from being a nation before Me forever."
Thus says the Lord,
"If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the
earth searched out below, then I will also cast off all the offspring
of Israel for all that they have done," declares the Lord.

   Jeremiah continues the thought of the permanency of the Jewish people. He does not allegorize the literalness of the verses above. They are about the Jewish linage and the natural descendants who God will someday bless again. Of course it is understood that His Spirit will touch that future generation and they will be redeemed and trust their Messiah in the last days! In 32:37-42 the prophet says that God will gather them again out of all the lands to which they have been driven in His anger.  He "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, that they may fear Me always, for their own good, and for the good of their children after them."

   The "one heart" and the "everlasting covenant" is the new covenant Jeremiah mentions in 31:31-34. This new covenant is signed, sealed, and delivered by Christ by His work on the cross (Luke 22:20). That return to the land, and the fulfillment of the new covenant for Israel, is about to take place, because God has brought the Jews back to the land of their forefathers, as Jeremiah mentioned in 30:1-7.

   We are getting close! The world is moving into the apostasy; the rapture is next, and then the birth pangs will fall upon Israel, as prophesied by Jeremiah in 30:6. The birth pangs have to do with the tribulation. So, when will the event of Matthew 24 take place? When these happenings here in Jeremiah 30 take place. Especially, "When I restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah … and bring them back to the land that I gave to their forefathers, and they shall possess it." Read the entire chapter carefully! See also Matthew 24:8, 13, 21, and 1 Thessalonians 5:3.

   Thanks for asking.
   Dr. Mal Couch 

Why Do Others Not See The Error in Covenant Theology?

Dr. Couch, I am one of those "Covenant guys" who paid little attention to Israel and Bible prophecy. I was asleep in my Covenant arrogance and denial, but you have convinced me to see the Bible in its entire framework. Thank you. Why do others not see it? 

 

   I believe you answered your own question. There is a certain sophistication set forth by the Covenant theologians—but not all of them, of course. We cannot read the OT without seeing God’s plans with the Jews and the fact of future restoration. The Jews are central to the Scriptures. Also, if our Bible is 40% - 50% prophecy (or more), this is what we should emphasize in our teachings. Or to put it in another way, we should teach in proportion what God has revealed in His Bible. Doing this gives believers a divine timeline from the past, into our day, and on into the future.

    By stonewalling the issue of the Jews, and never dealing with Bible prophecy, proves that one is an anti-Semite by his silence. Bible prophecy should certainly not be the only thing we teach. I personally range all over the Bible, exegeting various epistles and prophecy books from the NT on into the OT. But C. I. Scofield said it perfectly: "When we near the events described in prophecy, we will better understand those events and their significance." Scofield did not hobbyhorse prophecy but he clearly saw what was coming in our day and how it lined up with the prophetic Word. 

    By the way, I have only known in my lifetime a few who jumped ship from dispensational to covenant. The flow is overwhelmingly the other way—from covenant to dispensational. And those who became Covenant enjoy the mystique, the traditions, the elitism of being "Reformed/Covenant." They often feel intellectually superior and sit around reading philosophical theology books that mean very little in the larger scheme of things. They can not argue biblically but only philosophically.

    By the way, speaking of Israel and Bible prophecy, my eyes just now fell on Lamentations 4:15. It reminds me of what is happening today in so much anti-Semitic thinking in our world. Jeremiah says that the people of the world say, the Jews "shall not continue to dwell with us." The cry of the Jews is found in 5:21-22: "Restore us to You, O Lord, that we may be restored; renew our days as of old. Unless You have utterly rejected us, and are exceedingly angry with us." The restoration of the Jews will bring them to faith in Christ and bring them back to their Land of Promise!

    I will continue teaching the great prophecies of Scripture. And I will let the Covenant leaning guys go on in their false sophistication and denial of the entire Bible, even of all that God says. 

Thanks for asking.

Dr. Mal Couch

Why Are Some People So Drawn to Covenant Theology

Dr. Couch, why are some people so drawn to Covenant Theology when, as you correctly point out, it is not textual and biblical? And, how did it come about?

 

    For an excellent summary of Covenant Theology I suggest the book Dispensationalism, by Dr. Charles Ryrie (Moody). He has an excellent review of this false theological teaching. But here is a synopsis: 

    Covenant Theology promotes two covenants, (1) the covenant of works, and (2) the covenant of grace. Both ideas are not found in the Bible as admitted by J. Barton Payne, Louis Berkhof, and Charles Hodge. They say, and admit, that these so-called covenants are implied but not explicit in Scripture. Our early parents could have "worked" for salvation but they failed because of sin. This has to do with the Covenant of Works. Christ then agreed by a covenant, in eternity past, to be the Redeemer—the Covenant of Grace. The Bible does not say this about Christ. It says however that He was faithful and obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. But that does not constitute the making of a covenant (a contract) with God the Father! 

    Covenant Theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. The earliest traces of the covenant idea are found in the second level of Reformers such as Andrew Hyperious, Olevianus, Eglinus, and William Ames (1576-1633). But the first to systematize the false views of Covenant Theology was Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669). Little was known at the time of this system. A theologian by the name of Herman Witsius (1636-1708) was mainly responsible for extending the idea of the Covenant of Grace back into eternity past. 

    Covenant Theology came to America with the Puritans through the writings of Francis Turretin and Herman Witsius. Charles and A. A. Hodge of Princeton expounded this view in their systematic theologies. J. Barton Payne (whom I knew personally), who was a Covenant theologian, admitted that the Covenant of Grace was not really in Genesis 3:15, which many such Covenant Theology teachers tried to claim. He had to be honest and say that the word "covenant" was not even in the verse. Oswald Allis, a Covenant theologian, also concurred and added that, if this covenant was in Genesis 3:15, "it was cryptic," i.e. it was buried or hidden somehow! Ryrie comments:

   

This is all very strange and hard to swallow, especially when the biblical covenants with Abraham, Israel, David, and others are so clearly and specifically revealed [in Scripture]. (p. 190) Many of the Covenant theologians, such as Charles Hodge and Herbert Carson cite scriptural references for the Covenant of Grace using the Abraham Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the covenants with David. With intellectual and spiritual dishonesty they simply plaster the Covenant of Grace over on top of these true covenants clearly mentioned in the Word of God! 

    One of the biggest faults of Covenant Theology, along with the fact that its so called “covenants” can not be found in Scripture, is (1) the claim that one interprets the Old Testament by interpreting back with the New Testament. The Covenant guys do not fully believe in progressive revelation, i.e. all of the Bible is flowing forward. The Old Testament should be taken as it is. While there is fulfillment in the New Testament, this is not the same as to what they mean. They re-write the Old Testament by the New! 

    (2) The allegorical interpretation that comes out of Covenant Theology. This is driven by the fact that the OT is interpreted by the NT. The kingdom mentioned in the Gospels is the Church, and therefore the idea of the kingdom in the OT is allegorized and spiritualized away rather than taken literally. 

    James Orr gives a correct criticism of the raw failure and dishonesty of Covenant Theology:

   

It failed to seize the true idea of the development [of the Bible], and by an artificial system of typology, and allegorizing interpretation, sought to read back practically the whole of the New Testament into the Old. But its most obvious defect was that, in using the idea of the Covenant as an exhaustive category, and attempting to force into it the whole material of theology, it created an artificial scheme which could only repel minds of simple and natural notions.

    On the subject and personal level I believe that Bible teachers with limited grasp attach themselves to Covenant Theology for two reasons: (1) Elitism. They like to claim that they are "Reformed" in their theology. This has a classical ring to their ears that makes them feel somehow intellectual! This generates a sense of false pride. (2) They do not let the Bible speak for itself and take it in its natural, normal meaning. They prefer to impose a false system on the Bible that cannot hold up to fair scrutiny. 

    Ryrie well summarizes:

   

1. Cov. Theo. was not the doctrinal system of the early church.
2. Cov. Theo. is not based on specific scriptural passages.
3. Cov. Theo. has a hermeneutical straightjacket that forces Scripture in reading the NT back into the OT, in an artificial typological interpretation.
4. In order to maintain a unity in the means of salvation, CT occasionally speaks about salvation by the Mosaic Law.

    Finally, some say, “Well, is not dispensationalism a new view and is not found in Scripture?” WRONG! The word dispensation (oikonomea) is used to describe the period of the church age, the Mosaic Law, and possibly the coming earthly, historic, literal millennial kingdom (which most covenant guys would deny). This is mentioned in the books of Ephesians and Colossians. Dispensationalism is not an artificial system imposed upon the Bible. We can clearly OBSERVE the various changes in the economies of the Bible, i.e. the dispensations! Remember OBSERVATION is one of the keys to Bible study. The covenant theologians have to ASSUME the reality of the so-called Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace because they are not in the Bible! 

    What I find most interesting is that the covenant guys have no answers as to what is happening in the Middle East. They have no comments about the Jews returning back to their promised homeland. I am convinced that most covenant guys are anti-Semitic, at least by their silence concerning Israel. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch

Are we under the Law by Works?

Dr. Couch, do Romans 3:31 and Hebrews 10:16 support the Covenant theology idea that believers are under the Law as a rule of life and for sanctification? It seems to me that the NT teaches that believers are not under the Law but under grace. 

 

    ANSWER:  If we were under Law by works, we would fail, as the Jews failed trying to keep it. Peter reminded the Jews at the Jerusalem Council that they could not keep the Law which was like putting a test upon God “by placing a yoke (upon our necks) which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). The point in Romans 3:31 is that God sees my faith, in a sense, fulfilling the Law: “We establish the Law” by our faith. The Greek word “establish” means “to confirm.” Thus by faith God sees me as a Law keeper, though really it was Christ who lived the perfect life and kept it! 

   Romans 3:31 says nothing about placing the church believers back under the Mosaic Law system. 

   In Hebrews 10:16-17, the author is establishing the fact that the New Covenant is now in operation. Jeremiah 31:31-on shows that the New Covenant replaces the Mosaic system. By this New Covenant God sees the believer as having the Law principles established inside, in the heart and in the mind. It no longer is something to keep by external standards. If you go back and look at the prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-on, you see that the Mosaic Law has been replaced. We are of course to live out in our lives the moral and spiritual principles that can be seen in the Law, but this is not saying we are now under the Mosaic Law as a way of life or as a system. We are not! 

   The Covenant guys just put all of the Bible into one big mixing bowl and stir it all up. Dispensational guys look carefully at context and see the unfolding plan. 

   Thanks for asking,

   Dr. Mal Couch