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)

Suppress Prophecy

Dr. Couch, are Christians saved who seem to suppress prophecy? ANSWER:  Yes, of course. Why would they not be? Salvation is not dependent on one's interpretative skills. But they are certainly blinded by what the Bible is teaching. You asked, why do they undermine normal interpretation. I believe Satan works overtime in fooling people as to the message of the Word of God. This does not mean they are not saved, it just means that they are being fooled. You also asked, do they deliberately suppress prophecy like unbelievers suppress all Scripture?    The unbeliever often denies the entire scope of the Bible, especially about personal faith in Christ for salvation. The amillennialist denies the coming kingdom reign of Christ. They have been brainwashed. And they are cutting out of their thinking almost half of the Scriptures. Premillennialists believe the Bible as it was written and as Christ taught it. To be premillennial means one knows that the Word of God is teaching that the Lord comes "before" His millennial reign. This is what the pious Jews believed. There is no question about this issue.    You also asked, how can a born again believer deny the normal interpretation of Scripture? Again, being born again has nothing to do with what they believe about prophecy. Thanks for asking, Dr. Mal Couch (7/10)

Apostles and Prophets in the OT Economy

Dr. Couch, it seems to me the "apostles and prophets" in Ephesians 2:20 has to do with the apostles and prophets in the OT economy. How would you answer? ANSWER:  Remember we determine doctrine by "observation" of the context, and by the Greek grammar of the sentence. This issue is settled by the grammar of the passage. In the commentary written by Dr. John Witmer and myself, we point out (p. 150) that prophets are listed following apostles, church prophets are in view (cf. 3:5; 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28-29). Verses 19-20 say "We no longer are strangers (the church saints) and aliens, but you are fellow citizens ... having been built UPON the foundation of the apostles and prophets, ..." The same is repeated in 3:5. "What was (in the past) not made known to the sons of men, revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit." And, to the church He had given "some as apostles, and some as prophets, ..." (4:11). And to the church "God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets ..." (1 Cor. 12:28).    It is important to note that in 2:19-20 we have one proposition: "foundation OF the apostles and [EVEN] prophets." This virtually makes the two offices equal, that is, the same thing. So also in 3:5: "His HOLY apostles and [even] prophets." Though the offices are separated in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and in Ephesians 4:11.    The greatest commentary on Ephesians ever written is by Dr. Harold Hoehner (he took 20 years to finish it). He taught Greek that long at Dallas Seminary. He writes: "First, there is only one article for both nouns. ... The one article may indicate that 'groups more or less distinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand.'"    The old Greek scholar Armitage Robinson writes: "Paul is not taking us back from the New Covenant (which he is writing about here in Ephesians 2) to the Old—not speaking of Old Testament prophets in the past—when he says that the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the new House of God."    Even amillennialist Charles Hodge gets it right. He writes: "The prophets here mentioned are those of the new dispensation [of the church], is evident—first from the position of the terms. It would more naturally be prophets and apostles if the Old Testament prophets had been intended. ... The statement here made that the apostles and prophets are, or have laid, the foundation of that house of which the Gentiles are a part, is more obviously true of the New (Covenant), than of the Old Testament prophets. ... The apostle-prophets—or apostles who are prophets. ... Both apostles and prophets belong to the class of Christian teachers [not of the Old Testament]."    Finally, the Bible Knowledge Commentary (BKC) (old Dallas Seminary) says "The 'prophets' are of the New Testament era, not the Old Testament. 'Prophets' follows the word 'apostles' here and in 3:5 and 4:11. These men received the revelation of the mystery of the church in the present Age, which had been hidden in days past, that is, in Old Testament times (3:5)."    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (7-10)

Verses Used by Amillenialists

Dr. Couch, what are some of the verses the amillennialists use to claim that the Abrahamic covenant is almost exclusively about spiritual descendants with no physical promises given to the physical descendants of Abraham? ANSWER:  They use Matthew 5:5; Galatians 3:29; Romans 4:13-15, and Revelation 21-22. On: (1) Matthew 5:5. This passage is to the Jews in regard to the "kingdom of heaven" which we know by Jewish history is the messianic Kingdom. The promises have to do with spiritual blessings, and physical blessings (the land) that will be given to Abraham's physical seed, Israel, in the Kingdom. The Jews will then "own" the world. First of all, it only has to do with those who are "gentile". If they have certain spiritual and emotional qualities, they will be blessed by the things of the earth, and then only in the Kingdom. This section even closes by saying that those Jews who are persecuted "for the sake of righteousness," theirs "is the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:10). All of the good things about that Millennial Kingdom will belong to them. The amils will do anything to broaden their point so that they can say these verses "indicate that the blessisngs promised to Abraham pertains not so much to his physical descendants but to his spiritual descendants through faith in Christ." Christ gave these Beatitudes (Matt. 5:1-11) in offering the Kingdom to Israel. This is not aimed at Abraham's spiritual seed! (2) Galatians 3:29. Paul says in Romans 4:16 that we are "of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." We are Abraham's seed by faith in Christ not by our physical relationship to him (Rom. 3:29). I am therefore a son of God by faith and "an heir through God" (Rom. 4:6-7). Galatians 3:29 says "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." The only thing this has to do with us is salvation as Paul explains in Galatians 3:6-9. "By faith I am a son of Abraham" (v. 7). And Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations are blessed in you (Abraham).' So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham the believer" (vv. 8-9). The physical seed receives both the land promises and the spiritual promises but the spiritual seed (the Gentiles) receive the spiritual promises. We read in the OT, to Abraham, "To your seed I have given this land" (Gen. 15:18). Read Genesis 17:6-8. To Abraham's seed Isaac it was said: "For to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. I will give your descendants all the nations of the earth [they shall be] blessed" (26:3-5). And Joseph said to his brothers "God shall bring you up from this land (Egypt) to the land (the Holy Land) which He promised on oath to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob" (Gen. 50:24). That's not me! (3) Romans 4:13-15. All this passage says is that Abraham's descendants would be heir of the world, not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. By context, this has to do with his physical seed not his spiritual seed. It was the Jews who were trapped in Law keeping not the pagan Gentiles. This is true in that the Kingdom is worldwide. Christ will reign from shore to shore in the Millennium. And of course the church will be there but this is not a spiritual promise but the physical promise from the verses above and many, many more!    When studying the Bible keep the lines straight. Don't wrongly mix the various parts that should not be mixed.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Apr., 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

Abomination of Desolation and the Issue of Antiochus

Dr. Couch, is there confusion about Matthew 24:15 and the Abomination of Desolation, and the issue of Antiochus in Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11? ANSWER:  Not really if one reads carefully and slowly, and looks closely to the contexts. Remember the rules: context, context, context, and, observe, observe, observe! Even the amillennialists basically agree on this issue. Daniel 9:27 and 12:11 has to do with the future when the antichrist enters the temple and proclaims himself as God. This is repeated in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-5. However, even amil. Ellicott gets it straight, though he becomes somewhat confused on 12:11 in regard to Antiochus.    Ellicott gets 2 Thess. 2:3-on correct and assigns it to the antichrist.    For those who want to get it all straight, you need Dr. Paul Benware's great commentary on Daniel "Things to Come" which Scofield produced.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch

"Mystery" by Amillennialists

Dr. Couch, I really appreciate your work in the biblical languages. Few Bible teachers online today, are doing language studies. Thank you for your insights. Also, on the word "mystery." Many Amillennialists seem to be confused on the word. Did some of the old Amil writers and theologians get it straight? ANSWER:  Yes, they did. In my Hermeneutic textbook I have a whole chapter on the dispensations of Charles Hodge. He lists the dispensations almost in the same fashion as dispensationalists do today except he leaves out the dispensation of the Kingdom reign of Christ. Paul's point in Ephesians 3 is that the church was not revealed by any means or in any form in the OT. In his commentary on Ephesians, Hodge says what present-day dispensationalists do about the word "mystery." Present-day allegorists would be shocked to know what he writes.    He says on Ephesians 3: "The thing made known by Paul was a 'mystery'; i.e. a secret, something undiscoverable by human reason, the knowledge of which could only be attained by revelation. … The mystery of which he here speaks is that of which the preceding chapters (in Ephesians) treat, viz. the union of the Gentiles with the Jews. … The mystery made known to the apostles and prophets of the new dispensation (the church dispensation), that the Gentiles are, in point of right and fact, fellow-heirs of the same body, and partakers of this promise. … It seems never to have entered into any human mind until the day of Pentecost, that the theocracy itself was to be abolished, and a new form of 'religion' was to be introduced, designed and adapted equally for all mankind, under which the distinction between Jew and Gentile was to be done away with. … Neither is the Gentile in the church by courtesy of the Jews, nor the Jew by courtesy of the Gentiles. They are one body."    With these thoughts Hodge says what dispensationalists do today!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch

What About Progressive Dispensationalism?

Dr. Couch, I know you speak often of Progressive Dispensationalism. What is your main complaint? 

 

    Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) is not biblical! It was an attempt by some academicians to hold hands with Covenant theology. In fact, the “founders” of PD virtually admitted the same. They wanted to join the “intellectual” guys, the Reformed crowd, or at least to be accepted by them, so they came up with a compromised view. They say two things that are not biblical:

1. Christ is now seated on the throne of David “in heaven.” They use Psalms 110:1-2 as proof which says: “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.’ The Lord will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, ‘Rule in the midst of Thine enemies.’” Then they try to tie the Melchizedekian order to the kingly Davidic covenant in verse 4. Wrong again! The book of Hebrews ties the order of Melchizedek to the fact that Christ is a priest “forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 7:17), but then points to the fact that this order shows that Christ is the giver of the New covenant (Heb. 7). The Davidic covenant has to do with Christ’s future earthly rule and reign. Note “earthly” not “heavenly.” He is not on the throne of David presently, as further clarified in Revelation 3:21. There Christ differentiates between His Father’s throne in heaven, and His earthly throne He will set up on earth in the Millennium. This is further confirmed by the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-on where He speaks in the future tense of His coming to reign on His “glorious throne” on earth, in Jerusalem!
   
2. Along with the allegorists and the amillennialists the PD guys try to say that Joel 2 was fulfilled in Acts 2:14-21. Peter does not say that. He does not use any word that indicates this quote is (a) an illustration, or (b) a fulfillment. He says “but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel” (v. 16). With the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the New covenant was LAUNCHED, BEGUN but not fulfilled! It will be fulfilled by Israel at their conversion in the kingdom. However, the church presently does BENEFIT by the New covenant but does not fulfill it.

   I understand that some of the PD fellows have changed many of their views and gone back, to a degree, to biblical dispensationalism! You cannot mix apples and oranges—Covenant theology (which is allegorical and amillennial) and true biblical dispensationalism! 

   I suggest you order the book Progresssive Dispensationalism by Dr. Ron Bigalke, published by University Press of America. I have two chapters in that book: “The Relationship Between Covenants and Dispensations” and “The Church Dispensation and the ‘Times of Refreshing.’”

   Thanks for asking,

   Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.