Was the Church Around Before Pentecost?

Dr. Couch, I have heard some say that by their careful exegesis the church started before Pentecost. What do you say?



ANSWER: I think they are a little looney! There is no evidence that the church began before Acts 2. More than likely these are amillennial folks who can't read very well. The first reference to the church as the beginning of a local body of church believers is found in Acts 5:11, which reads: "Great fear came upon the whole church ..."



Matthew 16:18 is a future tense in which Christ is predicting the establishment of the church. Unfortunately, Matthew 18:17 is a mistranslation. It reads in the English: "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; ..." The Greek word is ekklasia which is often translated "assembly," as referring to the Jewish synagogue.



Remember, we translate by CONTEXT not simply by the fact that we see a particular word. Context, context, context, is the key to good exegesis!



The Greek lexicon says that the word can be used thusly: "A gathering of citizens," "assembly of the people." From the LXX: "An assembly of the Israelites" in Judges 21:8. Also, "Any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance," and, "A religious meeting."



Only when there is a true assembly of believing Christians in reference to the New covenant do we translate the word as "church."



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

Dispensational Theologians

Dr. Couch, we hear a lot about Covenant theologians. But who are the Dispensational theologians you respect today?

ANSWER: Without a doubt, Walvoord, Ryrie, Scofield, Pentecost. And those of us in the PreTrib Study Group can be trusted, such as myself, Hindson, Ice, Stallard, Benware. All of the great Bible schools, Bible colleges, etc. were all dispensational, such as Moody, Dallas, and Philadelphia (and many others). Many of the great Dispensational scholars of the past are listed in my Award Winning book "Dictionary of Premillennial Theology."

Many of the current dispensational theologians of the day have written in my book, "Gathering Storm". As well, you need to read my "Fundamentals for the Twenty-First Century" (Kregel). Chapters are also written by these outstanding men.


Some of the greatest names of the dispensationalists of the past, and their histories, are in my "Dictionary." You will find it a fascinating book!

The most well-known Covenant guys are: Hodge, Shedd, Berkhof, Strong, A.A. Hodge, Reymond, etc. I have these volumes, plus many others but they do not have our books. Therefore, they are downright ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches.

If you have read my "Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics" volume you will see that Hodge and Berkhof actually fudge on the Bible. Part of the Covenant Theology comes from outside of the Bible, and they even admit to that fact!

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

Covenant in Isaiah 42 and 49

Dr. Couch, what Covenant is referenced in Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8? ANSWER:  Isaiah 42 is about the Messiah, about Christ the Servant of God. God says "Behold, My Servant whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights" (v. 1).    The the Lord said "I have called you (the Messiah) in righteousness … I will appoint you as a covenant to the people" (v. 6). More then likely this is the New covenant because it has been ratified by the blood of Christ at the cross. Jesus told His disciples before He went to the cross: "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20). Isaiah 49 is the same, and verse 8 says virtually the same thing.    The New covenant was ratified by Christ's death (Luke 22:20), and launched at Pentecost (Acts 2), and is now applied to the church, though the church does not fulfill the New covenant. It will be finally fulfilled when Israel is back in the land.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (10/10)

Kingdom of God is Here Now

Dr. Couch, since Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit, does this not prove that the kingdom of God is here now, according to Matthew 12:28? ANSWER:  The verse reads: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you [the Jews]."    First of all, this has to do with the Jews and not the church. We do not call the kingdom of God the church!    The kingdom of God, and/or the kingdom of heaven is about the earthly, historic, literal, messianic kingdom promised to Israel. That kingdom has to do with (1) the occupation of the Holy Land, (2) the personal reign of the Messiah in Jerusalem, and (3) the New covenant and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Jewish people, who are in that earthly kingdom. Is that going on right now? No.    While the New covenant has been (1) ratified by Christ's death, (2) launched at Pentecost, and (3) now is benefiting the Gentile and Jewish church believers, it is only one element of the kingdom. And, it also must be benefiting the Jews in the Holy Land, when that Land is restored and ruled over by Christ. None of those things is happening presently.    The kingdom was indeed presented when Christ the king was present. But that does not mean that the kingdom was put into place and is now here, as it is described above.    John the Baptist, and Christ, proclaimed "The kingdom of God is at hand" (Matt. 10:7) (Along with many other references). The verb "is at hand" is the key to understand what is happening. It is the Greek word agizo in the Perfect Tense. The Perfect tense means that the action starts in the past and comes up to the present but this does not imply that the action has been fulfilled. It could be translated "The kingdom of heaven has come up to the present moment but is not necessarily being fulfilled." The word is defined "to come near, to be close by, to be brought near." The kingdom was near because the king was there! But the kingdom did not materialize.    This is what Christ has in mind in Matthew 12:28. The missing ingredient is that the Jews did not repent, in terms of the majority of the nation, they did not accept and embrace their king. Thus, the kingdom was postponed, though it was nearby; therefore it is yet future.    The church is not the kingdom and the kingdom is not the church.    In Matthew 12:28 the "has come near" is the Greek verb "phthano" in the Aorist Tense. The word means, according to Toussaint in his Matthew commentary, "to come or to arrive." He further says "In view of the evident rejection of the King, the kingdom could not now be said to be in the condition of remaining at hand. In fact the kingdom is never again preached as having drawn near."    Matthew 12:28 does not indicate that the earthly kingdom had been established but simply that because the king was there so was the kingdom IN CHRIST! Hindson in his Matthew commentary notes "It must be noticed that the kingdom of God was already present in the person of the king—Christ Himself." But the millennial earthly reign was postponed because the Jews did not repent of their sins and in their accepting of Him.    The well-known grammarians Balz & Schneider say on Matthew 12:28: "This did not constitute the commencement of the kingdom of God announced by Jesus as being near at hand (agizo, Matt. 10:7)."     Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (8/10)

John 20:22-23

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

Spirit-Driven Miracles

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

Rapture Doctrine Taught to the Disciples

Dr. Couch, how could the rapture doctrine be in John 14:3 when the Lord was speaking to the disciples? He said He was coming again to receive them to Himself, but they would all died by or before 70 AD. ANSWER: Christ at this point was speaking to the disciples as part of the church age that would begin at Pentecost. Nowhere in the NT, nor in the words of Christ, is a timeframe given as to when the rapture would take place. All of the disciples would die by or before 70 AD, except John who died sometime around 90-95 AD. So the coming to get them had to refer to their bodily resurrection when they would receive a new body and be taken home with the Lord. Their souls and spirits had already gone home at the point of death. Then Christ would bring their souls and spirits back with Him and unite them with their new bodies. This is all explained in detail in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. In that 1 Thessalonian 4 passage, Paul writes: (1) for those who have fallen asleep IN JESUS, He will bring back with Him (v. 14). That which He would bring back with Him would have to be their souls and spirits. (2) then, those who are "alive and remain" will be caught up together in the resurrection for the church saints, that is, those who previously "had fallen asleep" in Him (v. 15). The resurrected, and those still alive (could be us today!), will be "caught up together to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord" that is, in the new resurrected body. When the disciples died, their souls and spirits would go home to be with the Lord, and their physical bodies would be placed in the ground. When Christ then "would come for them," He means He would come to resurrect them from the earth, they would be given their new bodies, and go home to be with Him in the "mon'e," the private apartments that He had prepared for them—for their new bodies in glory. The problem we have with the John 14:1-3 passage is all the details are not spelled out here as they will be later in Paul's epistles. Now it all makes sense, when we tie it all together. I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch (Feb., 10)

Israel Fulfills the New Covenant

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

Will the Rapture Take Place on Pentecost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Thanks for asking.
   Dr. Mal Couch  

Did The Church Begin At Pentecost?

Dr. Couch, most Bible teachers say that the church began at Pentecost, but in Ephesians 5:25 Paul writes "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it." Loved is in the past tense. If the church did not start until after Christ ascended, it seems that this must be talking about something else. What do you think? 

 

    ANSWER: Both the words "loved" and "gave" (Himself) are not in the past tense but in the aorist tense. While there are certain similarities in the two tenses (in some cases but not all), the point is simply that He "Did" these two things—He loved and He gave! 

    There is no conflict in the passage. Christ loved the church that would be forming by the work of the Holy Spirit shortly after His resurrection, more specifically after His ascension. The apostle Paul is simply applying the work of Christ to the soon-coming church. The church was not around until Pentecost. 

    Thanks for asking!

    Dr. Mal Couch