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)

Interim Covenant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baptism in the Bible

Dr. Couch, where did baptism come from?

ANSWER: The idea of “the washing” comes from the washings from the OT. The water did not actually spiritually cleanse one, but it was a picture of such a cleansing. There are two words used in the OT context. The Greek word used in the LXX was baptizomai and the related word bapto. The baptismal work of the Holy Spirit is prophesied in Ezekiel 36:25. This is tied in to the coming of the New Covenant that was made for Israel, based on the death and the sacrifice of Christ. The New Covenant would replace the Law Covenant. See Jeremiah 31-on.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 is tied together: “I will sprinkle (“slosh” zarach) clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (v. 25). Physical water does not make one spiritually clean. The verses go on and say, “And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes …” (v. 27). “And you will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers …” (v. 28). The great Jewish/Christian scholar Dr. Charles Feinberg (who was one of my profs in grad school) writes: Ezekiel 36:25 “is a parallel to Jeremiah 31:31-34. … This is the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Israel in the future. … The gift of the Spirit is frequently connected with the coming of the new economy (dispensation) for Israel (see 39:29; Isa. 44:3; 59:21; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:16 f.).”

This is the spiritual baptism carried out by the Holy Spirit as mentioned by Christ. It launches the New Covenant that was first for Israel but would be applied to the church. The church does not fulfill the New Covenant but presently benefits from it. Israel under the dispensation of the kingdom will in the future fulfill the New Covenant when the Jewish people come to Christ in the land. We are not now in the kingdom! The New Covenant was ratified by Christ’s death and launched at Pentecost, and will be fulfilled when Israel is back in the land and trusting in their Messiah!

Keep the dispensational lines straight and the Bible will all come together. Mix up the dispensations and you have chaos, and, you’ll get rid of Israel and certainly not understand how the Word of God goes together! Only dispensationalists have it right. The covenant guys have it all wrong and they allegorize and spiritualize the great prophecies of Scripture. They are into replacement theology and get rid of Israel just like the Catholic Church does.

Thus, the idea of a washing comes from the OT. But that washing is symbolic of the washing of the Holy Spirit, a baptism! This is what truly saves one, based on faith in Christ. Water baptism does not save! It is but the sign of the spiritual work and the spiritual reality carried out by the spiritual washing, and the union that follows with Christ, all done by the work of the Spirit.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

Post-Tribulation and the Rapture

Dr. Couch, it seems as if the post-tribers are against the rapture doctrine because they say that Psalm 110:1 teaches that Christ remains in heaven until His enemies are subdued and then He comes back to earth again. What do you say?

ANSWER: They practice what I call "wooden-headed" interpretation. The Psalm 110 passage has to do completely with the issue of His coming to earth to reign. They cannot prove by the passage that He never leaves heaven to gather upwards His church saints in order to get them out of the way for the tribulation. They have a problem, I don't! All of the rapture passages are clear. (Look in the archives in this website. I have an exegesis on almost all of the rapture passages!)

God gathers His own up to Himself. And again, don't mix dispensations. Psalm 110 has to do with His coming millennial kingdom reign. The rapture issue has to do with the church.

The post-tribers have to answer what it means when Paul says "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them (the resurrected) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17). I can read! And I know the difference between up and down. He does not come down to reign. We go up to meet Him in the air. We take the Bible verses where we find them. We OBSERVE, OBSERVE, OBSERVE!

The reason we go up is obvious from 5:9. Paul writes, "For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." The church does not go through the wrath. And the wrath is the entire seven year period, not just the last half. We know this from Jeremiah 30:6-7. The "Birth Pangs" (v. 6) refer to "that day." And "that day" is "great" in a singular sense (v. 7). The church does not go through part, any part of, the tribulation. We are rescued from all of it! This is further explained in 1 Thessalonians 1:10: "Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come," all of it!

Only premillennialists practice good hermeneutics and sound observation. The other guys get very sloppy! And remember, when you work so hard to deny the obvious, you have a hidden agenda. What is their agenda? Usually, it is that they just don't like the doctrine of the rapture, and, they just don't like dispensationalism, though they really can't tell you why.

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)

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)

Salvation: The Most Important Doctrine

Dr. Couch, the Reformed folks say salvation is the most important purpose and doctrine in the Bible. Dispensationalists say that there are many other doctrines that God makes important in Scripture. How would you answer what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ...” It seems as if salvation is the most important doctrine. How do you answer?

ANSWER: If you look carefully at verses 1 & 2 you see that Paul is discussing the issue of believing, and on the issue of believing, he points out that he received the real scoop about what salvation is all about. He then defines salvation for those who believe in verses 3-8. His description and definition is complete and full in these verses. In this passage he does not address the other important doctrines we find in the Word of God. And there are many. But notice carefully something.

When he writes “I delivered to you as of first importance ...” the word “first” is protois. In the Greek lexicon, when this word is without an article and without a noun attached it means “absolutely.” By the way, the translators have added the word “importance.” It is not in the Greek text. So it should read: “I delivered to you THE FIRST, the MOST ABSOLUTE, when it comes to the issue and the definition of salvation.” He is not saying that this is the “First” most important doctrine in all of the Bible but it is the most important description when he is going to write about salvation.

We let the Bible speak to us; we don't tell the Bible what to say or believe, it tells us! Dispensationalists are correct in our understanding of what the Word of God is saying. The Bible IS dispensational. And, there are many doctrines that are equally important in the Scriptures that we have to heed. By the way, I believe our message today is two-fold: (1) The doctrine of salvation, and (2) The doctrine of the literal, historic, and actual return of Christ to come to the earth to reign and rule. History is going to cave in, collapse. Only when Israel's Messiah arrives will right be restored. Our Savior is the promised King who is soon to come to the earth as prophesied.

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

Prophesy in the Dispensation of the Church

Dr. Couch, I've heard you say that in the NT there is no one who prophesied except the apostles and also Agabus (Acts 11:28). But is this true?

Yes, this is true, but I was talking about the dispensation of the church. There are those who were under the dispensation of the law, mentioned in Acts 1, who were able to give prophetic utterances, such as Zacharias (Luke 1:67), Simeon (2:25) and Anna (v. 36). Of Simeon it was said "The Holy Spirit was upon him" (v. 25).

But you cannot find the average Christian, once you get into the dispensation of the church, who prophesied into the future. There were prophets who were "teaching" prophets but not giving prophecy into the future.

Remember, the key to understanding the Bible has to do with OBSERVATION! We observe what the text is saying. We don't come to the Bible with our preconceived ideas; we let the Bible speak to us—we do not tell it what to say!

Key words for Bible study are: OBSERVATION, INTERPRETATION, and APPLICATION. And, the word CONTEXT is also most important. If we do not interpret by Context we will get terribly confused!

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (3/11)

The Church and The Sabbath

Dr. Couch, is the church under the Sabbath?

ANSWER: No it is not. The early church met on the first day of the week which was Sunday. "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, …" (Acts 20:7). Nine of the ten commandments are moral and spiritual in nature. They are eternal principles that reflect eternal values. They are repeated (but not as the Ten Commandments as a law system) throughout the NT. The Sabbath, while extremely important to the OT economy, is not repeated as an imperative for the NT church age and dispensation. We are not under the Sabbath commandment. Since it is a day of body and spiritual rest, we have transferred those qualities to Sunday, and there is nothing wrong in doing that. But as a heavy moral imperative, we are not under the law, any part of it, including the Sabbath.

It is important to add however, we are not now antinomian. We have the law of Christ, to love one another, and we have all of the moral commands stated in the NT epistles that are incumbent for believers to live by today.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch
#297

Old Testament Saints and Salvation

Dr. Couch, if the OT saints are not “in Christ” and are part of the church, then how are they saved?

ANSWER: Good question but it’s really easy to explain. Every Bible teacher worth his salt agrees that Romans 3:25 is saying that the death of Christ is covering the sins of the saints of the past—in former dispensations before the church age. It reads: Christ is displayed as a propitiation (a place of mercy), demonstrating “His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.”

In his Word Pictures A. T. Robertson writes on this verse: The sins spoken of are “The sins before the coming of Christ (Heb. 9:15). … In this sense Christ tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9).”

Charles Hodge adds: “The words, ‘that are past,’ seems distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ. … (Heb. 9:15) ‘He is the Mediator for the redemption of sins that were under the first testament (the OT).’ … God has set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, to vindicate his righteousness or justice, on account of the remission of the sins committed under the former dispensation (the Law).”

Lenski goes further: “God passed over the sins of these Old Testament believers. … God pardoned their sins. … What took away the sins of the Old Testament saints was Christ’s blood. … The final reckoning with the sins of the Old Testament believers was, as it were, postponed until the true mercy seat was set forth. In this way the Old Testament saints had their ‘remission,’ it was in the form of a ‘passing over.’”

That the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, would do this for the OT believers was prophesied in Isaiah 53:12. He would “justify the many.”

Kroll rightly concludes in his Romans commentary: “The righteousness of God is declared by atoning for present and future sins as well as past sins. Therefore God is the justifier of any man or woman—past, present, or future—who places his or her faith in the blood of Jesus Christ.”

Yet the Bible is careful not to place OT saints into the body of Christ. They are never said to “be in Christ,” be part of “the body of Christ,” and they are never said to be “in the church.” The church is a unique dispensation in which believers of this present period have a special and different relationship with Christ than ever before. When the church saints are resurrected and the rapture of the living church saints takes place, there will be those who believe during the tribulation. They are “tribulation saints” but they are never seen as part of the body of Christ or labeled as those “in the church.”

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch
#289

Circumcision

Dr. Couch, what is the significance of circumcision to the Jews? Why were the servants in Abraham's house circumcised? Some use this issue to say that Gentiles should be circumcised and that it proves that the church is part of the covenant from the beginning.

ANSWER: Circumcision was a token or a sign of the Covenant God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:11) but too, the blessing of the Covenant spilled over to all who were in the household of the Jews, such as servants, whether they were Jewish or Gentiles. That is "All that is born in your house, or bought with money of any foreigner (Gentile)" (vv. 12-13). "They must needs be circumcised" (v. 13).

The Rabbis noted "Slaves reared in the patriarch's home had a feeling of attachment to their masters." This included even the child of a slave. The Rabbis noted that the Covenant extended its blessing to those who were touched by the Jews, such as the servants.

But it is a stretch to say that this becomes a type of the church being a part of the covenant automatically. The church is blessed by the New Covenant that is an extension of the Blessing aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant. But this is not because of circumcision. Those in the church today must believe in Christ. The church is not automatically a part of the Covenant. But you cannot go the opposite direction and extend the church back to the Abrahamic Covenant, thus creating one big people of faith, as some of the Covenant guys would like to do.

The blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant is not automatic. Abraham had to believe what God said in order to be justified himself (15:6).

Circumcision had two big purposes. It gave to those who were circumcised a health factor by the cutting away of the foreskin. This protected both the husband and his wife in intercourse. That cleanliness factor became a picture of cleansing in salvation, making the recipient seen as holy in God's sight. Physical circumcision is not ordered in the New Testament but there is a spiritual circumcision mentioned in Col. 2:9-13.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (3/11)

Salvation During the Tribulation

Dr. Couch, will people have an opportunity to be saved during the tribulation? ANSWER:  Yes, indeed, during every dispensation there is an opportunity to be saved. See Revelation 14:6-7. This may be the last chance for the lost to accept the gospel. In verse 6 it sounds like there is "another" gospel besides the one we all know about. But actually, the Greek text simply reads "having gospel (that is) eternal (gospel) to preach to those who live on the earth ..." The gospel of Christ is characterized as a gospel that lasts forever. It is eternal! And people are saved only by it no matter what dispensation they live in.    Notice the gospel will be preached to the entire earth, "to every nation and tribe and tongue and people." To believe is to "fear God, and give Him glory." "Judgment is coming, thus belief is to fear Him and worship Him. Notice how God is classified as the Creator, He "made the heaven and the earth, and sea and springs of water." While technically, the gospel is about the death and resurrection of Christ for sinners, the gospel encompasses a total presentation of the God who saves men. He made men as well, and, He is to be feared and worshiped.    Actually John wrote that "the hour of judgment came" (Aorist Tense, not a Perfect Tense). At the point of Revelation 14, it had already arrived, it was time for human judgment to begin. Men could not escape judgment, it had come upon the human race.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch  (1/11)

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)

Hyper-Dispensationalism

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

Understanding the Dispensational Controversy

Dr. Couch, are you familiar with the book "Understanding the Dispensational Controversy" by Kerry Trahan? ANSWER:  No, I am not. But I am not sure I would be interested because "there is no controversy!" Now I know how that sounds—rather dumb on my part! But what most do not realize is that the Bible IS dispensational. There is no such thing as a dispensational theology that is distinct from other theologies. Since the Bible is dispensational that is the way it must be studied! Those who do not see the various divisions of Scripture and the dispensational flow of the Word of God are just not reading their Bible properly. "It Is Dispensational!"    To approach the Bible as the Covenant guys do, they have to allegorize passages of Scripture at some point along the way. To let the Word speak for itself means that you will come out with a dispensational framework.    But thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (7/10)

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

War Concerning the Teaching of Dispensationlism

Dr. Couch, there seems to a war brewing over the teaching of prophecy among Evangelicals, especially concerning the teaching of dispensationlism. The argument is that we dispensationalists are overdoing it. How do we answer? ANSWER:  The majority of verses in the Bible have to do with prophecy, prophecy already fulfilled and more to be filled in the future. But we are in good biblical company! The Bible gives us the encouragement to teach about end time events. For example:    Paul commended the Thessalonians as to how they were "serving a living and true God, and were waiting for His Son from heaven" (1 Thess. 1:9-10).    About the return of the Lord in the rapture of the church, Paul says he does not want the church "to be uninformed, ignorant (without hope) about the coming of the Lord" (4:13).    Paul reminded the Thessalonians that when he had been with them previously, he taught them about the coming of the Anti-Christ (2 Thess. 2:5).    He says in 2 Timothy 3:1 "But realize (know) this, that in the last days difficult times will come."    The apostle told Titus that he should be "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13).    The opponents against biblical prophecy are wrong; we are right! I could go on and on with many more verses of Scripture. The passages above are just the start of what Paul says about the importance of eschatology! Don't let them fool you! Study your Bible; this is what the opposition does not want you to do!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Oct., 09)

Dispensationalism to Reformed Thinking

Dr. Couch, I'm sending you some info from a man I know what says that he jumped ship from dispensationalism to reformed thinking. What do you think of what he said? ANSWER:  I find it interesting that all he did in the letter was to say how impressed he was with the piety of many of the reformed scholars. He quotes man after man but what I noticed he does not deal with any of their exegesis issues. He could not do battle doctrinally or biblically.    It does not matter how impressed we are with personalities. What counts is, what does the Bible say? And I found that this is not where your friend is coming from. For some reason, many are "impressed" with the "classical" sound some of the reformed guys put forth. This means that those reading them are not dealing with issues of exegesis and hermeneutics. They are impressed with the packaging and not the substance!    I find also that the reformed guys are not reading us, yet I have all of their theology books just three feet from my desk. I often read them, check them out on certain subjects, and appreciate them—when they are biblical. But too often they interpret by their indigestion or by the chili they ate the night before! And, they hold views that they cannot substantiate from the biblical text.    As I have debated with many of the reformed folks I have found they cannot "debate" back. They do not know how to exegete or handle passages. They just say that they are against dispensationalism but they have no ability to really handle the differences in the two views.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch