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)

Nephilim

Dr. Couch, I still hear Bible teachers saying that the Nephilim in Genesis 6 were a mixture between humans and fallen angels, thus creating a hybrid of strange creatures that were unusual being in early Genesis. What do you think?

ANSWER: For years I have studied these verses from the Hebrew text and am convinced that they are not referring to fallen angels! What is happening is that the two lines, the Godly and the unGodly lines of Seth and Cain, were coming together, by which the line of humans was weakened and degraded, becoming even more sinful.

By good exegesis, and reading carefully chapters 4-6, this view seems to make the most sense. While there are some Bible teachers who hold to the "angel" theory, the outstanding scholars I read hold to the fact that the two lines of Seth and Cain come together, washing down morally and spiritually the Godly line.

I just discovered the great Old Testament respected Jewish Christian scholar, Alfred Edersheim, holds to the coming together of the two lines. He writes:

"The corruption of mankind reached its highest point when even the difference between the Sethites and the Cainites became obliterated by intermarriage between the two parties, and that from sensual motives. We read that 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.' At that time the earth must have been in a great measure peopled, and its state is thus described, 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.'

This means more than the total corruption of our nature, as we should now describe it, and refers to the universal prevalence of open, daring sin, and rebellion against God, brought about when the separation between the Sethites and the Cainites ceased. With the exception of Noah there was none in that generation 'to call upon the name of Jehovah. … The giants (in Hebrew: Nephilim) were 'men of violence, or tyrants,' as Luther renders it, the root of the word meaning, 'to fall upon.'"

All of the above is what I teach from good, solid exegesis! Almost word for word!

The scholarly Jewish Rabbis in the Soncino commentaries hold to the same view—this is not referring to fallen angels. They write:

"There is no trace in Genesis of 'fallen angels' or rebellious angels; and the idea of inter-marriage of angels and human beings is altogether foreign to Hebrew though. The mythological explanation of this passage was in all ages repelled by a large body of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators, though it has been revived by many modern [and liberal teachers]."

There is one Jewish Christian teacher in Texas who holds to the angel theory. But he does so by following others, holding to mythology and not good exegesis from the Bible. Don't follow him blindly! I work with the best of commentators not those who buy into mythology! In fact, I do more Hebrew exegesis than this dear brother! He often does not do good independent exegesis as he should.

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

The Seven Churches and Time Periods

Dr. Couch, do you believe that the seven churches in Revelation represent time-periods of church history? ANSWER:  This was a common view of Bible teachers some generations ago but there is no evidence, in history, or in the context of the book of Revelation, that this would be the case. Having taught graduate church history for decades I don't see these churches lining up with history. However it is true that the problems of these congregations can be found throughout church history, and even today in various assemblies. I have to put an explanation to that, however. Many things they were fighting cannot be found in churches today!    One of the rules of hermeneutics is that, if these churches have prophetic significance for the outline of church history there would have to be some kind of indication in the passages that would tell you that this is the case. And there are no such indications in the verses. The critics would say that we are just guessing, which indeed we would be doing! This is interpreting by eisegesis, that is, be putting an idea into the text rather than letting the text speak to you (exegesis).    I do not fault those who hold to the "historic-church" view of Revelation 2-3 but I don't hold to that position.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch  (11/10)

Exegetical Teaching

Dr. Couch, thank you for your book Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics. I understand now how so many pastors are not explaining, exegeting, or using good hermeneutics from the pulpit. They just "talk" but do not pull out from the text the meaning of the passages! We are in deep trouble with the death of hermeneutics and exegesis, are we not? ANSWER:  Yes indeed, it is over for the church! We are into the apostasy where the Bible is no longer being explained. And, in my opinion, there is no turning back!    Hermeneutics is a good biblical word, used often by Christ and by Paul. Here are some of the references: Luke 24:27; Acts 9:36, and in reference to explaining the gift of linguistics, 1 Corinthians 12-14. The word is also used in John 1:38, 41, 9:7; and Hebrews 7:2. It is often translated "explained, interpreted, translated."    Sometimes the preposition dia is at the front of the word, thus to be translated "to thoroughly interpret." The base word is hermes that comes from the name of Hermes, the messenger god of the Greeks. Thus, hermeneutics is how one moves or transmits a message. Today, hermeneutics is a lost skill, or forgotten art. Pastors will no longer be able to set forth clearly the message of the Bible. Doctrine will be trashed and lost! And without doctrine, the church will sink deeper into apostasy, error!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (September 2009)

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

A Sign of the Apostasy

Dr. Couch, where I live we have no Bible churches, so my family is attending a SBC! Our pastors all come from SBC seminaries where they have only been taught how to run a church and "preach." The preaching we receive from them is simply oration containing baby-step advice on how to live, some of it biblical and some of it not so biblical! It is certainly not exegetical.    The SS is even worse. Each quarter when I open the new SS book (put out by Lifeway), I shudder to see what lightweight material they are putting out. More often than not it is written by women with no theological training at all—they have for the most part simply been SS teachers. Is this a sign of the apostasy? ANSWER:  Thank you for your email letter: I am amazed how those trained at SBC schools think they are getting solid Bible courses. They are not! They get big doses of pablum with no meat or vegetables. But they brag that they are "Bap…" and have no idea what they are missing in understanding the Bible. Unfortunately, independent seminaries, and seminaries that used to give good teaching, are also moving toward the lightweight stuff. Doctrine and exegesis is out and simple how-to stuff is in! I find it most disturbing that the material is being written by women. Men are to be the theological leaders in Bible studies. Apparently, no men are available to write and lead, or this denomination is going Politically Correct (PC) in assigning women "elders" to write.    Many in the denominational churches are just playing church. But I would agree with you that, putting it all together as to what is happening in our churches, we are moving rapidly toward the apostasy of the church. Looking at all the passages of Scripture, the apostasy, as Paul puts it, is a departure from THE Truth and from THE Faith!    In my opinion, there is no turning back. The course has been set. And what the Word of God says about "the departure" from the truth is coming to pass. I wish I had some suggestions for you. I keep praying that men such as you will attempt to band together with other like-minded folks to begin a home-church that has a strong and virile doctrinal statement, and that calls upon soundly trained men to exegete the Scriptures for those who are spiritually hungry.    By the way, I get letters like this almost on a weekly basis. People are in deep trouble!    Thank you for your email.    Dr. Mal Couch

Which is More Difficult and Why—OT Exegesis or NT Exegesis?

Dr. Couch, which is more difficult and why—OT exegesis or NT exegesis? 

 

    ANSWER: They are both equal. In other words, to do honest exegesis, in either the OT or NT, one must work from the language. Hermeneutics is the science that unlocks any language. There are principles that must be used in order to get the message. Those principles are common to translating and comprehending the Bible, whether OT or NT. 

    Exegesis is the art (and science) of pulling out the meaning of a given text. The word means "to lead out." Since I translate weekly in both languages I do much of this automatically. I force my students to look hard at a passage and discover the keys that give the meaning. Before we were through, they were able to pick up speed in finding the most important points in the verses. 

    When we finished they were able to spot the blatant errors of amillennialism, preterism, and progressive dispensationalism. More than one student said it was the best class they ever had. I suggest several books: Ramm’s Protestant Biblical Interpretation, and my Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics. 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch