Land of Israel is Land-less in the New Testament

Dr. Couch, what do we say to those who say the "land of Israel" is not mentioned in the New Testament? And thus, the covenant that will be fulfilled is "land-less" in the New Testament?

ANSWER: First of all, we do not have to track with those who make the New Covenant spiritual only. Because the land is not mentioned in the NT only proves our point. For the Gentiles now, we benefit by the NT but the church does not receive the land. All the promises about the land are made in the OT and they are still there. They are going to be fulfilled! The land does not have to be mentioned in the NT in order to be fulfilled. The OT promises are still valid and will come to pass just as they were prophesied.

However, having said that, I contend that the land is mentioned in the NT when it is mentioning the New Covenant for Israel. We read in Romans 11:26, which is quoting Isaiah 59:20, "Thus all Israel will be saved, just as it is written, 'THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob, ..." Notice that it says "from Zion." is "ek" which means clearly "out of," or "away from."

But the Hebrew text of the Isaiah 59:20 passage says "a Redeemer will come TO Zion." The Hebrew word TO should be translated "FOR, FOR THE SAKE OF Zion." The consistent and normal reading of Zion means "Jerusalem, Israel, or the Land of Israel." Even the old scholar Nicoll writes:

"Paul is thinking of the historical people. Israel as a nation a part of the Messianic kingdom, is the content of his thoughts."

When Paul quotes the New Covenant in Romans 11:27: "This is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins," part of the context of the New Covenant, given there in Jeremiah 31:31-40, the prophet mentions the land issue. Jeremiah writes in that context: "When the city [of Jerusalem] shall be rebuilt" (v. 38), and "the valley … and the fields as far as the brook Kidron (which is on the East of Jerusalem), "to the corner of the horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord, it shall not be plucked up, or overthrown anymore forever" (v. 40). This is part of the context of the New Covenant. Read Jeremiah 31:31-40.

Christ fulfills the Davidic covenant as mentioned in Luke 1:31-33. "The Lord God will give Him (Mary's Son) the throne of His father David." This then is expanded in Psalm 132 that makes it clear that this Covenant is fulfilled in Zion, "the Lord's resting place," and there "Your sons will keep My covenant (the Davidic), "For the Lord has chosen Zion; He had desired it for His habitation." "This will be a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob" (v. 5). ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT THE LAND! We don't need the Land to be mentioned again in the NT!

In Matthew 25:31-45 A LAND is clearly implied when the Kingdom is mentioned (v. 34). "The Son of Man will come in His glory … and will sit on His glorious throne" (v. 31) with all the nations gathered before Him (v. 32). This implies a place, a location, a geographic site, a headquarters, A LAND!

The resurrected come to life and "reign with Christ for a thousand years" (Rev. 20:4, 6). Where is it that they are reigning if not in the kingdom land? The forces of God and Magog "surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city, ..." (20:9). What is the beloved city, and where is it, if not in the city of Jerusalem during the kingdom reign? Is not this the LAND?

The prophecy of John the Baptist is given to us in Luke 1:76-77. This is a quote and a fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6 which partly reads that John will turn the hearts of the children to their fathers "lest I come and smite the LAND with a curse."

So much about the LAND is implied and understood by the reader except those who want to get rid of such a reference. The land is the kingdom, and the kingdom is the land!

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

Abrahamic Covenant for Today

Dr. Couch, is the Abrahamic covenant still applicable for the Jews today?

ANSWER: Yes, indeed, it is, because first of all, it is called an eternal covenant that is still in operation. Note Psalm 105:8-11. There it states that the covenant was made with Abraham and passed down to Isaac and then Jacob as "an everlasting covenant, saying, 'To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion of your inheritance.'" See also verses 42-45. As well: Isaiah 41:8-11.

Christ said that God made a promise to the Jewish people, and, do they not know, He is (Present tense, exists as) "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Matt. 22:31-32). And they are alive in glory! These fathers still exist and the Lord has not forgotten His promises to them.

Mary was promised a fulfillment "of what had been spoken to her by the Lord. And Mary said, 'He has given help to Israel His servant, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his offspring (future Jewish generation) forever'" (Luke 1:54-55).

Zacharias added: God determined "to show mercy toward our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, the oath which He swore to Abraham our father, to grant us that we being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days" (vv. 72-75).

These promises are given to the Jews and they have not been canceled.

Luke 1:31-33 is also important. Christ, the Son of David will establish His rule, throne, and kingdom, and it will have no end, it will be eternal. This is the house of Jacob, the Jewish people. It is not the church.

Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (5/11)

Everlasting Covenant

Dr. Couch, what is the everlasting covenant?

ANSWER: This adjectival description is applied to the Abraham covenant. So it can be applied several places to several covenants. God told Abraham "My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you" (Gen. 17:7). With Isaac "I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant ..." (v. 19). "The covenant which God made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, … to Israel as an everlasting covenant" (Psa. 105:10). "The covenant which He made with Abraham, … to Israel as an everlasting covenant" (1 Chron. 16:16-17). You will be priests and ministers of the Lord … I will make an everlasting covenant with them" (Isa. 61:8).

The Mosaic Law "it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel" (Lev. 24:8).

The New Covenant: "I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, … I 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, … And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them ..." (Jer. 32:37-40).

Future fulfillment of the New Covenant: "It will be the Lord their God they will seek. They will ask for the way to Zion, turning their faces in its direction; they will come that they may join themselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten" (50:4-5). Unger writes on Jer. 50:5:

"They will join themselves in a perpetual covenant, the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) based upon Christ's finished redemption work (Zech. 12:10-13:1), in contrast to the Old Covenant (the Law) which they broke."

The Abrahamic and New covenants are eternal, and so is the Law (Mosaic) Covenant. Christ fulfilled it eternally though we are no longer under it.

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

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)

Palestinian Covenant

Dr. Couch, what is the Palestinian Covenant and is it unconditional? And what does unconditional mean?

ANSWER: Let's back in to these questions. To be unconditional means that there are no human or Jewish conditions to be fulfilled for that covenant to be valid. The Palestinian Covenant is an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant that has three main parts. Promises to Abraham and his descendants concerning (1) a land, (2) a Seed, and (3) a blessing. The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional in that to fulfill the covenant is not dependent on the faithfulness of Abraham. God will sovereignly bring the covenant to its completion. It is not based on human faithfulness, though the Jews will be believing in the Lord and be faithful to Him when the covenant is finalized in the Kingdom.

The key verses on the Abraham Covenant are found in Genesis 12:1-3. God told Abraham,

"Go to the land which I will show you, and I will make you a great nation (a great Seed), and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Deuteronomy 28-30 lets us know that the Abraham Covenant is unconditional and that it will be ultimately fulfilled by the Lord in order to establish the promised Kingdom. Deuteronomy 30:1-9 tells us that God is going to bring the Jews back to their land and that the Jews will obey Him "with all their heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons" (v. 2). The Lord will do "this and that" in a very sovereign way. Verse 10 is a bad translation. It reads "If you obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments ..." But the "If" is the Hebrew word "key" that should better be translated "When." That is, this will all happen "When they obey the Lord" as performed in a sovereign way by the Lord in the hearts of the Jewish people. In fact, in the side notes of the NAS it says the verse should be translated "For you will obey the Lord ..."

And Unger writes: "The divine redemptive program is not to be frustrated. God's grace will provide a remnant to fulfill the promises of restoration. Israel's disobedience and failure will not avail to overthrow God's purposes of grace."

In his classic work "Things To Come" by J. Dwight Pentecost, we see that this Covenant is unconditional and certain to be fulfilled. Pentecost writes:

"The Palestinian Covenant must be unconditional. It is called by God an eternal covenant in Ezekiel 16:60. This covenant has the guarantee of God that He will will effect the necessary conversion which is essential to its fulfillment. Romans 11:26-27; Hosea 2:14-23; Deuteronomy 30:6, Ezekiel 11:16-21 all make this clear. This conversion is viewed in Scripture as a sovereign act of God and must be acknowledged to be certain because of His integrity.

"From the original statement of the provisions of this covenant, it is easy to see that, on the basis of a literal fulfillment, Israel must be converted as a nation, must be regathered from her world-wide dispersion, must be installed in her land, which she is made to possess, must witness the judgment of her enemies, and must receive the material blessings vouchsafed to her. Since these things have never been fulfilled, and an eternal and unconditional covenant demands a fulfillment, we must provide for just such a program in our outline of future events."

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (2/11)

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)

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)

The Law of God

Dr. Couch, what is the "law of God" in which Joshua wrote his final words, as mentioned in Joshua 24:26? ANSWER:  There are different opinions on what this is. Some believe Joshua wrote (1) additional words to the Pentateuch, the Law of Moses. Others hold that (2) it was a different scroll of information that Joshua wrote that was simply added alongside of the Law, a separate document all together.    The word book in Hebrew is the word "Sa'pher meaning the scroll. This was a particular scroll called "the law of God." Unger takes the first view but I take the second view because this is how the Rabbis interpret the statement, and I believe they are correct.    Joshua is very serious about what he wrote. He apparently took it as inspired of the Lord, though it only served for a period of time and then was discarded. Joshua takes several verses to describe what he did in the writing of this scroll.    Joshua made a binding covenant with the people. What he wrote he turned into an agreement, a statute and an ordinance that day in Shechem (v. 25). By this he established his authority over the people as their new leader in place of Moses. Some believe that Joshua simply renewed the covenant which God had first made with Israel at Sinai, but I am not sure that what he wrote is simply a repeat of the Sinaitic agreement. What Joshua did here seems to be something that is additional, going forward with the people in a new step as they fortify the land they were entering.    On this "law of God" the Rabbis say:    "This cannot mean that Joshua added this as an appendix to the Pentateuch and included it therein; firstly because the Books of Moses were too sacred to be tampered with, and secondly, because the words are not to be found there. It may indicate that he wrote them on a scroll which he deposited in the same place together with 'the book of the Law of God.' This makes sense if we read it correctly as 'in a book of the law of God.' Thus, 'it became a book of the law of God.' These words of Joshua then were simply placed alongside of the Torah of Moses as something additional but not formally attached or tied to the Pentateuch."    Joshua then took "a great stone" and set it under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord (v. 26b). It was a common practice to set up a stone to commemorate an event of importance (cf. Gen. 28:18; Exod. 24:4). Joshua commemorated the crossing of the Jordan in this manner (4:3). Joshua here is declaring that this place was "a sanctuary of (for) the Lord." This became a place where the Lord would commune with Joshua and the people. Remember, a geographical place had not been established yet for the people to formally worship. The stone was set up "under an oak (tree)" that too became a sacred location. Joshua spoke to the people in order to confirm their inheritance.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Apr., 10)

Those Covenant Guys

Dr. Couch, I have been told that the covenant guys hold strongly to the fact that God is glorified by salvation, and that dispensationalists do not hold to such a position. What do you say?

ANSWER:  You've been listening to the wrong crowd. Dispensationalists certainly believe that the Lord is glorified in His salvation work for lost humanity. But dispensationalists are more biblical in that we believe that all things bring glory to the Father, not simply the work of salvation.

   God the Father of course receives glory (1) for our salvation, as well as the Son (John 13:31). "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him" (vv. 31-32). The context has to do with the work of salvation Christ is about to initiate for the world.

   It is also true that (2) "the heavens declare the glory of God" (Psa. 19:1). (3) Christ as the messianic King will also receive the glory due Him (Psa. 24:7-10), as well as (3) the Kingdom itself is seen as glorious (Psa. 145:11-13). And with the destruction of Gog and Magog, (4) the Lord will receive glory among all the nations (Ezek. 39:21).  

   I could go on and on demonstrating that God receives glory in so many things, not simply in salvation.

   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 Do Reformed and Covenant Teachers Say God Is Through With The Jews?

Dr. Couch, the Reformed and Covenant Theology teachers often say God is through with the Jews, and that the church has replaced Israel forever. How can they do that? 

 

    The answer is simple. They come to the Bible, on this issue, with a philosophy of Replacement, and then conveniently excise the Jews as a restored theocratic people. They do this by their amillennialism and allegorical interpretation. I would love to hear what they do with several passages in the Old Testament that would refute them. 

    In 1 Kings 14:15-16 the Lord says He will uproot Israel from the land for their sins, and “He will give up Israel on account of the sins of Jeroboam … with which he made Israel to sin.” But comparing this with 2 Kings 14:27 we read: “And the Lord did not say that He would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, but He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.” By the way, this issue has to be kept in the context of what was happening at the time of Jeroboam, though the point is well made and can come down even to today! 

    Israel’s sinfulness, and the punishment that followed, does not mean God is through with the Jews! See my exegesis on this website on Romans 9-11. The Jews are still beloved at this present time in God’s eyes though they are for the most part in unbelief. They are beloved because He made a firm Covenant with their fathers and He will not go against His promises. “From the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (the Lord will not change His mind about making promises to the Jews)” (11:28-29). 

    Thanks for asking,

    Dr. Mal Couch

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

Well-Known Seminary Caved?

Dr. Couch, I understand that a well-known seminary, that was premillennial, caved in to the Reformed position and became Covenant in its theological orientation. Is this so, and do you know anything about this? I am not in the covenant camp. 

 

   ANSWER: I have the same information as you, though I do not have any details as to what happened. I can tell you in general what I think may apply to this situation: 

    There is less and less genuine study of the Word of God in our seminaries and Bible schools. They are becoming more and more pedantic and less and less academic, though they are now big-time into theological philosophy and "academia" (not true academics)! 

   They are less and less textual and are moving away from solid hermeneutics and interpretation. They are also becoming anti-Semitic and turning against biblical prophecy. Let me simply summarize. I think some of the things I list below may fit the case you are asking about.

1. The younger teachers love "academia." They like the big degrees and accreditations!
2. They are postmodern and are rewriting the nature of Bible study.
3. They no longer really believe in systematic theology.
4. They are less and less truly biblically textual.
5. They are enamored with Luther and Calvin and the Reformed mystique. It just "sounds" so sound!6. They are enamored with the "classical" nature of the Reformed movement.
6. They have no regard for Israel and believe that the church has replaced the work of God with the Jewish people.

    Now do not get me wrong! We owe much to the past, and I love studying the Reformed greats, though they are way off base in eschatology, and too, they are terribly inconsistent in their hermeneutics. Many also have the attitude that if Calvin said it, it must be right. They study the Scriptures blindly without discernment and context. Many establish their theology and then go into the Bible to "confirm" what conclusions they have come to. 

    I was not trained that way. I was heavily trained in the biblical languages, and by textual analysis, I establish with a normal hermeneutic, my theology. 

    I believe this is why such schools as you are asking about have departed from premillennialism and turned to Covenant theology. Everytime a student goes to a "weak" school hermeneutically he comes out confused. And this is what is happening. But also the faculty and the governing boards are even more confused. 

    At one of the "big" seminaries close to me, the administration does not know it but more and more of the students, after they receive their diploma, jump ship into Covenant and begin to deny God's working with Israel. But too, the biblical education they received is less and less from what I received. 

    While Scofield is far from perfect, we are getting our students deeper into the Word of God and giving them sound interpretation so that they can defend the great doctrines of Scripture. This of course includes eschatology: the rapture, the tribulation, and the Messianic kingdom! 

    My answer is not on target as to what you asked, but I hope this helps. 

   Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch

Which Study Bible Do You Recommend?

Dr. Couch, I am considering purchasing either the Scofield Reference Bible or a Ryrie Study Bible. Which do you recommend? 

 

   ANSWER: I have for years used both. You can now get the Scofield in the NAS version. I think this is excellent and use it mostly. Ryrie is good and reliable but a little thin in content in some places. 

   The most important thing is that both are clearly premillennial and dispensational. They sell the most—in the millions of copies! A plain Covenant and Reformed Bible does not sell. This tells me that the layman wants to know the truth and always goes with dispensational writers, though not being sophisticated as to all the issues. The Bible IS premillennial and dispensational! 

   Thanks for asking,

   Dr. Mal Couch

Non-Literal View of the Rapture

Dr. Couch, how can the Covenant and Reformed guys be so off base in regard to their “non-literal” view of the rapture of the church, the tribulation, and the return of Christ? 

 

    ANSWER:  I think the answers are somewhat simple. (1) They don’t take the Bible in a normal, literal sense, when it comes to future prophecy. However, they (strangely) take His first coming literally but deny His second coming as actual and literal. (2) They really do not study the Old Testament. When is the last time you heard of a Covenant guy giving a verse-by-verse exegesis from an OT book? (3) They are to some degree anti-Semitic. When have you heard of a Covenant or Reformed guy calling for heart-felt support for the Jewish people in general, and for the nation of Israel in particular? 

    Christ did not chide the Jewish people and the leadership for their literal views of the Kingdom of God, which is actually the Millennial reign of the Messiah on the throne of David! He chided them for their legalism and for their hypocrisy, not their literal and orthodox theology. 

    Reading the ancient Jewish Rabbis one can see the normal interpretation and literalness the Jews had for the OT Word of God! While often they had some mystical views (those writing in the period of the Middle Ages), they still understood the OT was predicting a worldwide tribulation, a literal coming of the Messiah, and His messianic reign in Jerusalem over the entire world. For example in the Zohar (2:7; 2:172b) we read:

         
          Sufferings will overtake Israel [in the end times], and all the nations and their
          kings will consult together against Israel, and many evil decrees will arise and
          will bring trouble upon trouble. At that time King Messiah will be stirred up to
          come forth. And on that day on which He comes there the whole world will
          tremble, and all the children of the world will hide in caves and crevices [the
          book of Revelation!]. The Messiah will arise and reveal Himself in the Land.

          The Messiah will be revealed, and many nations will gather against Him, and
          He will stir up wars in the whole world. And at that time the Holy One, blessed be
          He, will manifest His power against all the nations of the world, and King
          Messiah will become known in all the world, and all the kings of the world
          will rise up to wage war against Him. And many of the wicked among the
          Jews will join them and come with them to wage war against King Messiah.
          And then the whole world will be darkened, and many of the people of
          Israel will die in that darkness. 

    It is a satanic ploy to attempt to get rid of Israel, in Scripture, or in actuality in history.

   Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch