Is the Church Part of Israel

Dr. Couch, many amillennialists use Galatians 6:16 to prove that the church, present day believers, are part of Israel. Or, that we are now Israel. How do we answer them?

ANSWER: We answer them by thorough analysis and observation of the Scriptures. We use good hermeneutics and grammar, and history, to let the Bible speak for itself. The amills are poor scholars. They have lousy interpretative skills, if any at all!

"Israel" is a direct reference to the Jewish people. Israel is a reference to Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes. Jacob means to "grasp the heel." He was the supplanter who held back his twin brother when they were coming out of the womb. This made him the first born with all the first born privileges. Israel means "to strive with God," or the Angel of Jehovah as recorded in Genesis 32:28.

All of this has to do with Israel's history and it's not about the church! The church is never called Israel. However, we are the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith. "By faith" is the key. I am not a natural Israelite. Paul writes of those of us who are "of faith who are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). He speaks of those by promise "by faith in Jesus Christ" (v. 22). "Justified by faith" (v. 24). "You belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise" (v. 29).

Paul closes then with "And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God" (6:16). "Those who walk by this rule" would be the Gentiles and "upon them" would be Jews. "Israel" is never used to describe Gentiles! Paul went from one subject to another subject. "Those" and the "upon Israel." Thus, Abraham is the father of all who believe (Rom. 4:11). He is my spiritual father but not my natural father! But I am never called "Israel."

Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (4/11)

Doctrine of Election

Dr. Couch, I saw on your website you believe in the doctrine of election, which is typically a Reformed view. Most of the Reformed and Covenant teachers, of what I can read, are amillennialists, but you do not hold to amillennialism. How do you combine [or answer] this issue, that is, being a millennial dispensationalist and holding to divine election? I am confused! 

 

    ANSWSER:  I appreciate your question because it blows my mind how the general public can so miss what solid biblical doctrine is all about—specifically, how we arrive at certain, absolute certain, biblical truth! The way you put your question it seems as if the Reformed guys got together and said, “I tell you what, let’s all believe in divine election, but we’re sure the poor slob dispensationalists will not hold to this view!” 

    You clearly do not know how doctrine comes about. It’s what the Scriptures say that counts. And the Bible is clear about God’s absolute sovereignty, divine election, total depravity, eternal security, etc. 

    These views are not held because the Reformed guys say that are true; they are held because the Bible says they are true. They are defensible exegetically. However the Bible with equal clarity teaches the coming literal millennial reign of Christ. The Bible is millennial not amillennial. And, this doctrine of the coming millennial kingdom of Christ on earth, with Israel as the core people, is certainly defensible too! 

    The Reformed guys say, “But the millennium is a Jewish doctrine and Christ repudiated Jewish teachings!” WRONG! Christ never chided the Jews for their belief in the coming reign of the Messiah. He chided them for their legalism and their hypocrisy, and for denying that He was that promised earthly King! 

    Most people do not realize it but all early dispensationalists were “Calvinistic” but they denied the “manufactured” Reformed Covenants of Works and of Grace! The Reformer guys even admit they are not in the Bible! Our strongest Evangelical schools in this country have been “Calvinistic” and dispensational, though now so many of them are turning just plain old liberal! I know. I used to teach at these schools which were the best Bible schools in the nation! 

    When you bring up the issues of Reformed theology, the sovereignty of God, and then try to make some kind of comparison between amillennialism vs. dispensationalism, you are mixing apples and oranges, and, you have been given a dose of wrong teaching as to how doctrine, solid biblical doctrine, is developed! 

    Thanks for asking!

    Dr. Mal Couch

The Theocratic Kingdom

Dr. Couch, I have just begun reading George Peters’ massive work The Theocratic Kingdom. On two separate websites it is said Peters held to a prewrath position and then others say he held to a partial rapture viewpoint. What do you say? 

 

    When in graduate school for a course in eschatology with Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost I surveyed all of Peters’ prophetic propositions (hundreds), and, I got an A for the course for doing so. But it would take a monumental search to prove the point of what he held. I cannot remember! 

    But I would say that, as I try to remember, the rapture issue was not the first thought in his mind. Peters was focusing on millennial kingdom issues. He had been a flaming Lutheran amillennialist until he started reading the Bible (which most amills do not, it seems!). Since most of the “old guys” had early-on simply lumped the thirteen or fourteen rapture passages in with second coming passages, they flat missed this great teaching in Scripture! The light started dawning around 1840, and to our great surprise, hundreds of outstanding old scholars saw it by the late eighteen hundreds. It is impossible to escape the rapture passages. They have to do with Christ coming for the church and taking the believers home with Him. That is different than the Lord coming to judge the world and to reign over the nations from the Davidic throne in Jerusalem! 

    By finding some of the books of the old guys, I am shocked at how many held to the pretribulational rapture position. 

   Thanks for asking, 

   Dr. Mal Couch