Post-Tribulation and the Rapture

Dr. Couch, it seems as if the post-tribers are against the rapture doctrine because they say that Psalm 110:1 teaches that Christ remains in heaven until His enemies are subdued and then He comes back to earth again. What do you say?

ANSWER: They practice what I call "wooden-headed" interpretation. The Psalm 110 passage has to do completely with the issue of His coming to earth to reign. They cannot prove by the passage that He never leaves heaven to gather upwards His church saints in order to get them out of the way for the tribulation. They have a problem, I don't! All of the rapture passages are clear. (Look in the archives in this website. I have an exegesis on almost all of the rapture passages!)

God gathers His own up to Himself. And again, don't mix dispensations. Psalm 110 has to do with His coming millennial kingdom reign. The rapture issue has to do with the church.

The post-tribers have to answer what it means when Paul says "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them (the resurrected) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17). I can read! And I know the difference between up and down. He does not come down to reign. We go up to meet Him in the air. We take the Bible verses where we find them. We OBSERVE, OBSERVE, OBSERVE!

The reason we go up is obvious from 5:9. Paul writes, "For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." The church does not go through the wrath. And the wrath is the entire seven year period, not just the last half. We know this from Jeremiah 30:6-7. The "Birth Pangs" (v. 6) refer to "that day." And "that day" is "great" in a singular sense (v. 7). The church does not go through part, any part of, the tribulation. We are rescued from all of it! This is further explained in 1 Thessalonians 1:10: "Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come," all of it!

Only premillennialists practice good hermeneutics and sound observation. The other guys get very sloppy! And remember, when you work so hard to deny the obvious, you have a hidden agenda. What is their agenda? Usually, it is that they just don't like the doctrine of the rapture, and, they just don't like dispensationalism, though they really can't tell you why.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

The Kingdom of God and The Kingdom of Heaven

Dr. Couch, is the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven the same thing?

ANSWER: Yes, they are, and I prove it in my Hermeneutic book, page 291. When Dr. John F. Walvoord saw this chapter he went silent! He realized that I had proven the point. You need my Hermeneutic volume, one of the few books on the subject.

Since I have so proven the point I won't repeat the information here but just to say, get the volume! The full title: An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Kregel).


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

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)

Progressive Revelation, Covenant Theologians, and Dispensationalists

Dr. Couch, what does Progressive Revelation have to do with the differences between Covenant theologians and dispensationalists? They see the covenant blessings promised to Israel as given to the church whereby we are heirs of those prophecies.

ANSWER: The word heir or inheritance are two Greek words put together meaning: "to legally call," "to legally designate." Almost all the verses using the word is referring to salvation not to all the covenant promises to Israel. I know of no NT verses that say the church is inheriting the land promises. It is true that the church will be in the millennium but the church today is not the kingdom, the millennium!

Dispensationalist are correct: Christ is not today reigning over the world through Israel in the Holy Land, there is not a restored earthly temple today, as Ezekiel indicates in chapters 40-48.

We premillennialists are in the right camp. We hold what the early church held to and what the pious orthodox Jews believed (and still believe); they still hold to Israel as being restored (as prophesied). The Jews are coming to Christ (as prophesied), a world war is near (as prophesied).

There is nothing that we "spiritualize" but the Covenant theologians must spiritualize (the kingdom) which we do not. We then do not have two phases of interpretation. We are consistent with literal interpretation. In fact, I believe it was Ladd who said, "If we held to literal interpretation as the premillennialists do, we would hold to their same position." Right on!

The issue is not about Progressive Revelation or about the word "heir." The issue is about being consistent with interpretation. And it is about seeing the clear distinction between Israel and the Church! The church is not Israel. Some of the covenant guys say "the church is in Israel in the OT." This is clearly not so!

Those of you who have my Hermeneutics book need to read the long quotes on pages 12-13, and pages 182 through the middle of 189.

My Hermeneutic book answers all of these issues. The book is used in many Bible colleges and seminaries. Several Covenant men reviewed my book and could not answer my charges against their views. I believe it answers all their errors about interpretation.

Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (7/11)

Wonders in the Sky Above

Dr. Couch, it seems that Acts 2:19-20a is saying that the “wonders in the sky above” all take place “Before the great and glorious Day of the Lord.” Is that what the passage is saying?

ANSWER: Not really. This is why it is imperative that those of us who want to be teachers MUST translate both the Hebrew and Greek texts in order to really understand what is going on in the Bible. Unfortunately, we are not training men today to work the text and be engineers of the Scriptures. We are losing it, and in my opinion, we will never get it back with the present generation.

I've recently been teaching Acts and have done a lot of translation work on Acts 2. “Before the great and glorious Day of the Lord” is important. “Before ...” sounds as if those terrible things happen just prior to the beginning of the Tribulation, the Wrath, the Seven Year Tribulation. But the key is the Greek word “Before” which is the word “Prin.” In Hebrew, where the passage comes from in Joel 2:31, the word is the particle the “Lamed” (the Hebrew letter L) that often means “to, toward.” But here, there is something else going on. The perfect illustration is with Psalm 12:7 which should read: “Silver purified in the workshop AS TO EARTH, or, IN REGARD TO EARTH.” Or, “in relation to earth.”

The passage in Acts 2:19-20 then should read: “I will grant wonders in the sky above, and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, “(Before) IN REFERENCE TO, IN REGARD TO the great and glorious Day of the Lord [which] shall come ...”

In my commentary series, Steven Ger on the passage makes a great statement:
“The new era commenced as the New Covenant began to be fulfilled with Jesus' distribution of His Spirit on Pentecost. This view is careful to recognize that there has been no fulfillment, in any sense, of any portion of the second segment (vv. 19-21) of Joel's prophecy. These astronomic cataclysms are to occur immediately prior to the inauguration of the messianic kingdom. It was obvious to every Jew standing in the Temple … that these signs and wonders were still to be fulfilled. Yet the promise of these cataclysms, cited by Peter, would have been compelling incentive to urge the assembled crowd to positively respond to their messiah.”

In other words, these signs are part of the Day of the Lord, they launch the Day of the Lord, or they certainly begin the Day of the Lord. They are not “outside” of that Day!

I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (6/11)

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)

Hidden Bible Codes

Dr. Couch, I know of some Bible teachers who believe in what they call the "hidden Bible codes." Is this heresy?

ANSWER: I know some of these brothers personally and I think it is unfortunate that they take this view. The problem is God has revealed to us His revelations in full without any hidden messages or methods needed to find out what the truth is. This means that some people are "in" on secret truth and some are "out" in knowing what God has revealed. This makes them special and gives them an "up" on the rest of us.

If God is giving us His truth why would He then give a secret code in order to unlock what He has to say? It does not make sense! The book of Acts says the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily in order to confirm the truth of the gospel (Acts 17:11). They used inductive reasoning and searching and did not employ some secret key to try to understand the Word of God. Paul says the Thessalonians "received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13). Again, no secret code was needed.

Some people like to be sensationalists and mystics in interpreting the Bible. Don't fall for it. God spoke to us in plain language!

Is the "code" view heresy? No, maybe not, but it is certainly wrong and terribly misleading!

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch
#296

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)

Hebrews and Unbelieving Jews

Dr. Couch, I have been following your arguments for sometime that Hebrews was not written to believing Jews who were giving up their faith in Christ. You have convinced me! I now see that the heart of the book was written to unbelieving Jews who came up to the edge of faith in Christ but then backed off and did not trust Him as Savior. Thank you for that insight! ANSWER:  You and I are in good company. The great Kenneth Wuest, Greek scholar, and I hold to the position that the book was mainly written to unbelieving Jews but then turned over to the Christian community as a witnessing tool. Those who hold that it was written to believing Jews who were about to apostatize cannot point to one verse in Hebrews to support their view!    I just discovered several weeks ago that the best lexicographers, Balz & Schnieder, hold to what I teach. They are now considered the best Greek grammarians around. They write that the word "apeitheo" which is translated in Hebrews as disobedient should, and could, be translated as "disbelief." They write that the word has to do with the rejection of Christian faith in Hebrews. "This equation of disobedience has to do with the lack of belief." "These Jews were unbelievers, Jews who had not become Christians." "The author of Hebrews is speaking of unbelievers." "They had a resistance against the revelation of God's salvation in the gospel." And "when it is said that the Jews have now been disobedient, nothing is being said other than that the Jews had not accepted the Christian faith."  End of discussion.    One Jewish Christian writer says that Hebrews 10:26 is about loss of the physical life not the spiritual life. The passage reads: "For is we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins."    The Jewish Christian author writes: The Jewish Christians "were subject to the penalty of physical death. It will not be spiritual death but physical death."    But he forgot to quote the verses that followed: "There no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (v. 26) but a certain terrifying expectation of a judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries" (v. 27). (The adversaries are those who deny the gospel.)    Verse 27 is about physical death?    The "sinning willfully" is the rejection of Christ after these Jews had heard the gospel. They remained in their sins.    The author of Hebrews shows how bad it was to reject the testimony of the Law (v. 28), but "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant (the New covenant) by which he was sanctified and has insulted the Spirit of grace" (v. 29).    Thus, the Jews who rejected Christ face the vengeance of God. See the next verse: "For we know Him, who said 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.' And again, 'the Lord will judge His people'" (v. 30). Verse 30 is not about physical judgment but spiritual judgment of the Jews who reject the New covenant of salvation in Christ!    A lot of Bible teachers just quote others without critical and exegetical thinking first. It's okay to quote others but you must make sure your own hermeneutical principles are sound first!    Thanks for writing.    Dr. Mal Couch (8/10)

Jews Losing Their Salvation on the Day of Atonement

Dr. Couch, I have heard some say if the Jews do not pray for twenty-four hours on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:26-32) they may lose their salvation. What do you say? ANSWER:  That is an extreme view and one that is out of order even in the OT. The way of salvation for the Jews is given in Genesis 15:6: "The [Abraham] believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." The Bible is written from a common sense viewpoint. By believing all that the Lord had said to Abraham constituted salvation for him. That belief was "accounted, reckoned, applied" to him for righteousness. In other words, God saw him as Positionally righteousness. This is what happens to us with God seeing us as righteous as Himself, and as righteous as His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. "Common sense" is part of good hermeneutics and interpretation. The Bible is not wild and woolly in its approach to reality!    In Leviticus 23:27 this Day is called "the Day of atonement," or (Capher), the Day of Covering. The sins of the Jews were covered for another year. Christ does not atone for us. And where the KJV uses the word "atonement" it is wrong, and that is why I don't use that "old" version. Christ's death was a one-for-all act whereby God is finished with our sins. We read in Hebrews 9:12: "He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION." And, Christ "is a mediator of a new covenant, ... by which we receive the promise of the ETERNAL INHERITANCE" (v. 15).    Back to the issue of the Jews and the OT: In Leviticus 23 the Jews were to humble themselves and do no work or they would be cut off from their people. This is not an issue of loss of salvation but they could die physically, for God "will destroy them from among [their] people" (v. 30).    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Mar., 10)

Intermediate Period or Kingdom of Heaven?

Dr. Couch, some say that Matthew 13, and the parables of the kingdom, is about the intermediate period between Christ's ascension until the rapture of the church. But I understand you and some other well-thinking Bible scholars point out that Matthew 13 is really about the Kingdom of Heaven and not about anything going on now in the church age. Is this right? ANSWER:  I have argued for years that if we keep our hermeneutics straight, we will not say these parables are having anything to do with the true church age. I am right, and those who take another view "have the right to be wrong!" Matthew 13 is about the kingdom of heaven, not about the church age. So says also the great Dr. William Pettingill who taught years ago at Moody Bible Institute, where I also taught after leaving graduate school.    On Matthew 13 Dr. Pettingill wrote: "It ought to be noted here that the Church is not in view in all this, nor is the Church Dispensation the 'Age' so often referred to. It is the Jewish Age, which has been interrupted by the parenthetical Church Dispensation. The Jewish Age is not yet finished, nor will it be until the Church is removed from the earth."    Matthew 13 is telling us about the preview of things to come in setting up the kingdom period, that is, the Millennial Age, "the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 13 is about a false spiritual period that unfortunately is sometimes labeled "Christian." Sometimes the present days are labeled "Christian civilization, Christian institutions, Christian countries, Christian governments, or simply Christendom."    But actually, Matthew 13 is pointing toward the coming kingdom of heaven, and that is what this chapter is mainly about!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Jan., 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

Problems in the Church

Dr. Couch, the problems go on in the church I'm involved in. What do I do? ANSWER  You mentioned the terrible confusion in the teaching there in the country where you live. The leaders do not know what they believe and they are mixing kingdom and church issues because of their blindness and ignorance of the Bible. It amazes me how we want science to be precise but we are ready to compromise when it comes to the "science" of interpretation of the biblical texts. What foolishness and blindness!    Someone will say, what do you mean by science of the Bible? They fail to realize that we start with the grammar of Scripture, and we must be "scientifically accurate when approaching the interpretative issues. Science means we also must interpret by logic, history, the social background of the Bible, etc. If we don't, we will not understand what's going on in the passages of Scripture. It is the Holy Spirit who inspired the authors in their usage of the right grammar of the Hebrew and Greek texts. And the Bible has a setting, a social, historic setting, which we must understand in order to be exegetes of the Word. I must follow the interpretative lead of the Holy Spirit. I can't be sloppy in my study of the Bible.    You mentioned that the leaders of the church could not identify whether they were amill, premill, postmill, Arminian or Calvinistic in their understanding of the Bible. And they knew nothing about the clear passages on the rapture of the church, which fouled up their total understanding and teaching of the book of Revelation. And these are teaching leaders?    I predicted many years ago we'd be in this mess once the leaders of the churches abandoned systematic theology and went to "feel good" messages, entertainment and emotion. And sure enough, I was correct!    Don't forget that Paul predicted the apostasy we are now in. He wrote: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound (healthy) doctrine (not feel good messages), but wanting to have their ears ticked (wanting entertainment), they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away from the truth, and will turn aside to myths (lies)" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Dec., 09)

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)

Pan-millennialism

Dr. Couch, have you heard the expression "Pan-millennialism"? ANSWER:  Yes, I have. It is put forth by lazy pastors and Bible teachers who do not study the Scriptures well, and then remain in ignorance about what prophecy is all about. I find it interesting that the Word of God is basically very clear about the major doctrines of the Bible, but when it comes to eschatology, the Lord gets sloppy and does not make prophecy understandable.    Of course, the problem is not with the Lord; the problem is pastors who do not pay the price of good study habits in order to know what the Bible is teaching on the subject. Their phony and silly answer to what the Scripture teach about prophecy is: "I believe in Pan-millennialism. It'll all pan out in the end!" That answer is juvenile and down right stupid! I would be ashamed to be a Bible teacher and come up with that excuse for my laziness in studying the Word of God!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Oct., 09)

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

"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