Heavenly Kingdoms

Dr. Couch, how do we know the difference between the "Kingdom of heaven" and the "Kingdom of God" in opposition to the other heavenly kingdoms mentioned in Scripture?

ANSWER: All the references that say the "Kingdom of Heaven (God)" are references to the millennial kingdom. Almost all the other kingdom references would be God's rule over His heavenly kingdom. Dr. John Walvoord gave high praise and endorsement to my Hermeneutic book in which I deal with this issue in chapter 22.  You need that book for a multitude of reasons. The orthodox Jewish rabbis tell us that it was common for the Kingdom of Heaven (God) references to be referring to the millennial reign of the Messiah.

I think part of our fear of being clear ourselves on this matter is because of the false influence of Covenant Theology. The Word of God is really easy to read and understand if we don't come to it with preconceptions that come from poor theology. Just let the Bible speak!

Thanks for asking.
--Dr. Mal Couch (4/12)

"The Kingdom of God" Present in the Church Today

Dr. Couch, Millard Erickson says that "the kingdom of God" over which Christ reigns, is present in the church. What do you say?

ANSWER: Erickson has not read carefully. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are two ways of describing the millennial kingdom. I proved this clearly in my book "An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics." Dr. Walvoord had not seen this before, and before he endorsed my book, agreed with what I had written. As you know he was an outstanding prophecy scholar. This is a book that is making clear interpretation of the Bible. And, it is one of the few interpretative books now available.

Thanks for asking.
--Dr. Mal Couch (2/12)

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)

Kingdom of God is Here Now

Dr. Couch, since Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit, does this not prove that the kingdom of God is here now, according to Matthew 12:28? ANSWER:  The verse reads: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you [the Jews]."    First of all, this has to do with the Jews and not the church. We do not call the kingdom of God the church!    The kingdom of God, and/or the kingdom of heaven is about the earthly, historic, literal, messianic kingdom promised to Israel. That kingdom has to do with (1) the occupation of the Holy Land, (2) the personal reign of the Messiah in Jerusalem, and (3) the New covenant and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Jewish people, who are in that earthly kingdom. Is that going on right now? No.    While the New covenant has been (1) ratified by Christ's death, (2) launched at Pentecost, and (3) now is benefiting the Gentile and Jewish church believers, it is only one element of the kingdom. And, it also must be benefiting the Jews in the Holy Land, when that Land is restored and ruled over by Christ. None of those things is happening presently.    The kingdom was indeed presented when Christ the king was present. But that does not mean that the kingdom was put into place and is now here, as it is described above.    John the Baptist, and Christ, proclaimed "The kingdom of God is at hand" (Matt. 10:7) (Along with many other references). The verb "is at hand" is the key to understand what is happening. It is the Greek word agizo in the Perfect Tense. The Perfect tense means that the action starts in the past and comes up to the present but this does not imply that the action has been fulfilled. It could be translated "The kingdom of heaven has come up to the present moment but is not necessarily being fulfilled." The word is defined "to come near, to be close by, to be brought near." The kingdom was near because the king was there! But the kingdom did not materialize.    This is what Christ has in mind in Matthew 12:28. The missing ingredient is that the Jews did not repent, in terms of the majority of the nation, they did not accept and embrace their king. Thus, the kingdom was postponed, though it was nearby; therefore it is yet future.    The church is not the kingdom and the kingdom is not the church.    In Matthew 12:28 the "has come near" is the Greek verb "phthano" in the Aorist Tense. The word means, according to Toussaint in his Matthew commentary, "to come or to arrive." He further says "In view of the evident rejection of the King, the kingdom could not now be said to be in the condition of remaining at hand. In fact the kingdom is never again preached as having drawn near."    Matthew 12:28 does not indicate that the earthly kingdom had been established but simply that because the king was there so was the kingdom IN CHRIST! Hindson in his Matthew commentary notes "It must be noticed that the kingdom of God was already present in the person of the king—Christ Himself." But the millennial earthly reign was postponed because the Jews did not repent of their sins and in their accepting of Him.    The well-known grammarians Balz & Schneider say on Matthew 12:28: "This did not constitute the commencement of the kingdom of God announced by Jesus as being near at hand (agizo, Matt. 10:7)."     Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (8/10)

Losing Your Salvation

Dr. Couch, is Luke 8:9-13 about loss of salvation? ANSWER;  It is about salvation but specifically, about the Jews believing in regard to the coming of the Kingdom of God. This is not the church. That is the millennial Kingdom where the Messiah will reign and rule. There is a "belief" that is not a saving belief. It is a form of acquiescence where one agrees but that belief is not from the heart. It may be an intellectual belief that does not go all the way to personal acceptance of Christ for salvation.    When Christ speaks about the "mystery of the kingdom," He's referring to that which is about the Kingdom not before revealed in the OT. It is a quality belief, a deeper belief than the Jews had ever exercised. Notice how easy it is for the devil to remove the word from their heart (v. 12), "so that they may not believe and be saved." These Jews were not justified. They agreed to a certain extent but then backed off from their belief. It seems to have been so easy for them to do! The truth did not take root. It was a surface hearing that did not catch hold.     Their hearts were like rocky soil, they believed for a while (though only in a certain way) but then when temptation came, "they fell away" (v. 13). I think the most important issue is that they were not justified. Nor did they really see, hear, and then truly understand (v. 10). People can agree to something but never apply it directly for themselves. This then is not a loss of salvation. They never truly embraced salvation. They only went so far and then backed off from actually accepting the offer of salvation.    When I was twelve I made a certain kind of confession but it was not real. It was only when I was sixteen that I actually believed in Christ in a very personal sense. And that was genuine!    I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (6-10)

Meaning of Luke 16:14-17

Dr. Couch, what is going on in Luke 16:14-17? I know you wrote a nationally published commentary on Luke, so you have some idea of what the Lord is talking about. ANSWER:  Christ is speaking to the Pharisees because He knew they were lovers of money. Before men, they were trying to justify themselves and yet God the Father knew their hearts. Before John the Baptist began proclaiming the gospel (good news) of the coming Messianic Kingdom (the kingdom of God), the Pharisees bragged in their Law-keeping. But then some of them saw the benefit of following after the kingdom, whereby the rigors of the Law were eased. While the preaching and the offer of the Kingdom was the new message, the Lord reminded them that the Law was still around, for "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail" (v. 17).    The millennial Kingdom at that point would be rejected and the belief in the simple gospel would be proclaimed after the crucifixion of Christ, and yet it too would be spurned. But the Jews, especially the Pharisees, could not escape the Law! This does not mean that they were to be saved by "Law-keeping." I wrote in my commentary:     But God knew their hearts (v. 15a). What men esteem, God detests (v. 15b). He then added that since the coming of John the Baptist, everyone was trying to force his way into the kingdom of God (v. 16), "but it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail" (v. 17). Many of the Jews wanted the benefits of the kingdom proclaimed by John and the Lord Jesus, but the rigors of the Law and its conviction about the nature of sin were being ignored. God was examining hearts, and the judgment of the Law was standing.    Everything Jesus was teaching was being scoffed at (v. 14). People want the easy route and do not want to live by the truth. The legalists of Christ day would pretend to keep the Law but in the long run they would reject both the Kingdom offer and the simple way of faith in the gospel.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Apr., 10)

Losing Salvation

Dr. Couch, some use Luke 8:13 to try to prove that one can lose their salvation after once believing. What do you say? And would this not contradict Hebrews 3:14? ANSWER:  The passage is not really about those who today believe in Christ, in the usual reference to the body of Christ, though there are some parallels that are possible. Christ is giving parables about the Jews who are considering "the Kingdom of God," which is about the coming of the millennial reign of Christ (v. 10). Satan did indeed work on the believing Jews as to whether Christ was coming to establish His Davidic reign at that time. The Jews, many of them, went back and forth in accepting and/or rejecting Him, and then in denying Him as the promised Messiah.    In verse 13 the parable speaks about the seed falling on rocky ground, and "they believe for a while, and in time of temptation [they] fall away." The expression "fall away" is our word "to apostatize" and that is always about those who have an appearance of faith but then reject the truth. It is in the Present Tense in Greek. They were "continually falling away" from the facts about the Kingdom of God. They were doing this because of the Satanic temptation. And the word implies that when things got tough they gave up what they seemed to be holding on to. According to the Greek Lexicon, the word is used to describe temptation brought on by "outward [or external] circumstances." Their belief was a form of temporary acceptance but not an internal embracing of the fact that Christ was the son of David and the promised King! Hebrews 3:12-14 does fit to some degree. It speaks about the "falling away" of the Jews (v. 12) and about the "hardening of the deceitfulness of sin" (v. 13). It ends by saying that the Jews would become partakers of Christ "if they held fast the beginning of their assurance firm until the end" (v. 14). And that is a perfect description of the Jews who heard about Christ's death, and the fact of who He was, and yet did not go all the way to embrace Him as their Savior and Lord who was promised in the OT.    Thanks for asking. And I hope this helps.    Dr. Mal Couch (Mar., 10)

Who is Christ Referring to in Matthew 21:43?

Dr. Couch, what nation is Christ speaking about in Matthew 21:43? Some say this is the church; some say it is referring to the Jews of another generation. What do you say? ANSWER:  The passage reads: "I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you (the Jews of that generation), and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it."    We interpret by observation, observation, observation.    And we observe that Christ is speaking about the "kingdom of God." We know by an undisputed fact that every time "the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of heaven" is mentioned it is referring to the millennial kingdom of Christ that is yet to come. And that millennial kingdom is the messianic rule of the Son of David sitting on His throne in Jerusalem.    In the verse before (v. 42) Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22 about "the stone which the builders rejected." Those verses in Psalm 118 are talking about Israel and about the "festival sacrifices" and the altar where sacrifices are offered. There is nothing here about the church!    Matthew 21:43 ties into Psalm 118 and Christ starts the verse with "Therefore ..." He is drawing a conclusion about how "The builders," the Jews in Christ's day are to someday be replaced by that other nation. Those who argue that this "nation" is the church quote 1 Peter 2:9-10 and Romans 10:19 and claim that in these passages the church is called "a nation." The Romans passage where "nation" and "people" are mentioned is a quote from Deuteronomy 32:21. This could certainly be a reference to the Gentiles but that is a long stretch to the idea of the church. The church is "the called out" ones (mainly but not exclusively) Gentiles. And to say that God will make Israel jealous by the Gentiles coming to the Lord is still not calling this group of Gentiles the church!    In 1 Peter, the apostle Peter is writing to one segment of the church, the Jews, to those who "are aliens" (or strangers), the Jews who are in the Diaspora (the scattered ones), the Jews who were driven from the Holy Land (1:1). In 1 Peter 2:9 Peter calls these believing Jews "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession." He is compiling several OT passages about the nation of Israel. He says of them that they "were not a people, but now you are the people of God" (v. 10). Now, as Jews, they are "to keep their behavior excellent among the Gentiles" (v. 11). This puts those Peter is writing to in opposition to the Gentile believers, members of the church.    To conclude: Peter is not saying this nation is the church! Neither is Christ saying that in Matthew 21:43!    So the other nation is a later generation of Jews to whom the kingdom of God will be given. Again, the "kingdom of God" is always the Jewish messianic future kingdom; it never is the church!    When interpreting the Bible, keep the lines straight. Don't mix concepts together in order to make a preconceived point. Let the Bible speak for itself.    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Feb., 10)

Matthew 7 and Salvation

Dr. Couch, I have heard some say that Matthew 7:13-27 is about the church; they make a case for belief not being enough to enter the kingdom—only those who do the will of the Father will enter. It seems this section is dealing with false prophets. Aren't these the predominant ones during the time of Christ who claimed to prophesy, etc. And, who were the ones doing this stuff in Israel at the time of Christ? ANSWER:  I won't be able to deal with this entire section in this short answer. It is important to say here that there are many spiritual principles in this section (Matthew 5-7: The Sermon on the Mount). So I will simply point out some observations that would tell us this is not first for the church; it has to do with what was happening with the nation of Israel as Christ began His ministry. And the passage is more than simply about false teachers.    Note the following: (1) The entire section has to do with the presentation of the millennial kingdom, here called "The kingdom of heaven" (5:3; 10, 19, 20; 6:10, 33; 7:21). (2) The church is made up of Jews and Gentiles but in this section, Christ compares the Jews with the Gentiles (5:47; 6:7, 32). (3) The Lord speaks of the synagogue in this section (6:2, 5), and (4) The giving of alms, which was a distinct Jewish practice (6:2, 3). Note 6:2: the church is not even around! "When you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues ..." 5:20 is a distinct Jewish passage that cannot be understood unless one sees that the verse is aimed at the thinking of the Jews. "I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes (Jewish) and Pharisees (very Jewish), you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."    Those who try to make a direct application of the Sermon on the Mount to the church have no understanding of history. There is no question but that the "kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God" is a description of the messianic kingdom! In no way is this used to describe the church age! If this is settled in one's mind, this section of verses makes definite sense. Again, while there are many principles that we can embrace in the Sermon on the Mount, it is not directed to the church age. We can have secondary application in some things the Lord says, but not direct application!    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (Oct.2009)

Kingdom of God and Luke 19:11

Dr. Couch, how could the amil guys think that the Kingdom of God in Luke 19:11 could be the church? ANSWER: The answer is simple. They cannot read very well! That may sound insulting but I can't think of a better reason. The Jews were all looking for the Jewish messianic Davidic Kingdom. They had no idea what the church would be all about. Since Christ was the promised King, they thought the Kingdom of God "was going to appear immediately" (v. 11). They were right in that it should if the nation had repented. That was the message of John the Baptist and of Christ also, but the Jews were too stubborn so the Kingdom would be postponed. Jesus then gave a parable of the nobleman who went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return (v. 12). While the story is complicated down through verse 27, I give the meaning on page 184 in my Luke Commentary (AMG Publishers). "The Jews buried the prophecy about the coming messianic kingdom, this becomes a sign of the most heinous of evils. And the citizens who said they did not want the new nobleman king 'to reign over us' (v. 14), represents the soon coming final rejection of the Jews of their promised Sovereign! The destruction of Jerusalem with its streams of Jewish blood is the preliminary reality that is back of these words." One thing is clear. The Kingdom of God is not the church! The context has to do with the Jewish people as Christ dealt with them. The rejection of the nobleman has to do with the rejection of Christ the King! The Kingdom is then postponed and the church then takes its place. Yet, the Kingdom will someday come—the earthly millennial reign of the Messiah in Jerusalem! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch

What Is The 'New' Nation in Matthew 21:43

Dr. Couch, what is the "new" nation that Christ is speaking about in Matthew 21:43? Some say it is the church, and that the Kingdom of God has been taken away from the Jews and given to the "church," which is that new nation. ANSWER: The passage says (Matthew 21:33-44) that the vine-growers take the owner's son (who would be Christ in the context) and kill him and seize his inheritance (v. 38). The Lord adds: The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone (v. 42). Then, "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you (the chief priests and the Pharisees), and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it" (v. 43). Some foolishly argue that this means the Kingdom of God is taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, the church! How does the church "produce the fruit of the Kingdom"? There is no comparison between what happens in the dispensation of the Kingdom and what is now taking place in the dispensation of the church! The Kingdom is a theocracy, with Israel, confined in its governorship to the Promised Land, though the Messiah's rule is worldwide. There is the restoration of the priesthood (Zadokian priesthood) and the restoration of a new Kingdom temple (Ezek. 40-48). Secondly, the church is never called "a nation." The Jewish leadership got the point; they knew He was speaking of them. "They understood that He was speaking about them" (v. 45). Christ is speaking about a future generation of Jews, a new and later Jewish nation that will embrace the Kingdom. He said, "Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation" (23:36). A future generation, a new nation, will receive and accept the Kingdom! Some dumbly attempt to say that when Peter quotes Exodus 19:6, he is there calling the church the "holy nation" as was applied to Israel. Exodus 19:6 reads: "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." (Notice it has to do with Israel, not the church!) Peter quotes this in 1 Peter 2:9 and says to the Jews who are in the Diaspora (the scattered ones), "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation." While it is true that Peter is writing to Jews who now belong to the church, his point is that the believing Jews have this as their heritage with its national promise. He is not applying this in the broad sense to the church. He says to those Jews, the "scattered Jews," that they have such promises as a nation. In fact, he goes on and says, you are "a people for God's own possession" (v. 9). The believing Jews now have received the promised blessings of the New Covenant as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-on. These Jews "obeyed Jesus Christ and [were] sprinkled with His blood" (the New Covenant). They had received grace "in the fullest measure." Thus, even believing Jews today can be proud of their historic heritage. They were God's "race," His holy race, and "a royal priesthood" that represented Him on earth, and as well, they were designated "a holy nation" which is not said of the church. The church is not a race or a nation, but this is how the Jewish people, even today, are described! Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch

The Kingdom of God

Dr. Couch, does Luke 17:21 say that the kingdom is here already, dwelling within the believer? And does this substantiate the argument of the Progressive Dispensationalists of their kingdom view: "Already but not yet," that is, that the kingdom is here within believers even though the historic kingdom is also supposed to be set up some day?

ANSWER: Oh, heavens no! Their view will not fly in any form or fashion! The messianic kingdom will be actual, historic, and a specific event that unfolds in time. To fully understand Luke 17:21 you must tie it together with 10:9, 11. In my Luke commentary on 17:21 I write: "in every reference to the arrival, or the coming of the kingdom in the Gospels, the verb is in the Perfect Tense. In Luke the NASB translates 10:9, 11 correctly: 'The kingdom of God has come near you." It has come up to the present, up to the moment, but it has not been inaugurated. 'It has been on its way, and it has arrived, but it has in no way begun!'" "Has come" is egiken in Greek and is from the verb engizo. It is a Perfect Active Indicative and this verb form is used almost always to convey the idea that the kingdom is presented but not inaugurated or fulfilled. That is, the "coming" of the kingdom has reached a finished state. If the Jews had repented as a nation, in theory, the kingdom would have started. Of course the God in His Prescience knew they would reject it! "It has finished coming" but is not necessarily now in operation. There is a cogent reason that the Perfect Tense is used so consistently when discussing the kingdom arrival. Dana & Mantey, the great Greek grammarians, write: "It is best to assume that there is a reason for the Perfect [Tense] wherever it occurs."

In the Greek text of 10:9, near is the Preposition epi with the root idea here of upon. The point is that the kingdom has made its arrival because the King is present, but this does not mean that the kingdom has started. "The kingdom of God is resting over you Pharisees but has not begun!" It is impossible that the idea of 17:21 would be that the kingdom is now operating within believers. Christ is talking with the Pharisees who, for the most part, were not true believers!

The BKC says:

    Some feel that the force of the expression is "within your possession or within your reach," Jesus' point was that He was standing right in their midst. All they had to do was acknowledge that He is indeed the Messiah who could bring in the kingdom—and then the kingdom would come.

In the book The End Times Controversy (eds. Tim LaHaye & Tommy Ice) I wrote:

    Based on the grammar and context of a given passage, engus may simply mean that something is coming near, approaching, or being brought near. But does this guarantee that the referred-to event will take place immediately? If John the Baptist and Christ said the "kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:2; 17; 10:7), is it inherent in the verb that the kingdom will come right then? Could the kingdom be near or certain but not actually arrive because of some other factors? As well, could the verb tens simply be telling us that that the kingdom is certainly on its way? Could it be that the Jewish rabbis understood that the kingdom would not be announced yet, not arrive because the nation of Israel was unworthy — that it was not inaugurated because of the sins of the nation? Can it be shown by the writings of the church fathers that they understood this problem? The church fathers indicate that the kingdom was yet to arrive—perhaps in their day, or beyond.

Thanks for asking.

Dr. Mal Couch

What Is Going On In Luke 16:16?

Dr. Couch, what is going on in Luke 16:16?

ANSWER: I am glad you asked. This is a great passage proving that dispensationalists are right in our interpretation. The passage reads: "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John [the Baptist came]; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it." The "since then" was taking place while Christ was still speaking to the Jewish people on earth.

John brought a certain conviction to the Jews who were not exercising genuine trust in the Lord. There was a rush to try to get into the kingdom because the king had arrived. By the way, the "gospel of the kingdom" is not the gospel of personal salvation. It is the "good news" about the arrival of the millennial reign of the Messiah! "The kingdom of God" is always a reference to that earthly Davidic reign promised in the OT. Therefore that kingdom cannot be the church as the allegorical guys try to make it.

In the context of the passage, Christ is addressing the Pharisees. Verse 15 sets up verse 16. "And [Christ] said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.’" In other words, the Jews did not want to miss the millennial kingdom and thought they would be its citizens simply because they were Jews.

The kingdom was then postponed. Yet someday in the future, the gospel of the kingdom will again be preached just before the finality of the tribulation. Christ said in Matthew 24:14: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come." It will be preached in the tribulation worldwide!

I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

What is Going on in Luke 17:20-21?

Dr. Couch, what is going on in Luke 17:20-21? Some covenant guys say "the kingdom of God is within you" proves that by faith, right now, we activate the kingdom within ourselves. What do you say?

ANSWER: Even most of the old amil and covenant guys who know Greek know better. The passage should read, as is translated in the NAS, "the kingdom of God is in your midst." The kingdom was there because the King had arrived! But it is important to look first at verse 20 to get the full scope of what Christ is talking about. He said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed." "Signs" (semeion) had to do with some kind of "signal" in order to give a warning or fanfare of something coming. In my Luke commentary I write about these two verses:

"Signs to be observed" (Luke 17:20) is the verb parateresis, meaning "in a way that can be observed [be external signs]," with "critical observation," Jesus described His coming: "Just as the lightning when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day" (v. 24). No distinct precursor will take place when the kingdom comes. It will suddenly arrive on the scene!

"For behold the kingdom of God is in your midst" (v. 21). In every reference to the arrival, or the coming of the kingdom in the Gospels, the verb is in the perfect tense. In Luke the NASB translates 10:9, 11 correctly: "The kingdom of God has come near to you." It has arrived but it has not been inaugurated. "It has been on its way, and it has arrived, but it has in no way begun!"

In 17:21 Jesus continues this thought and told the Pharisees, "It [the kingdom] is existing in your midst, but it certainly has not started!" When kingdom of God (and kingdom of heaven) is mentioned, it is accompanied by a perfect tense, meaning the kingdom has come up to the moment but it has not been inaugurated. The kingdom itself will not come with signs (Greek, semeion) to be observed.

This lends itself to the fact that the kingdom, the millennial reign of the Messiah, has been postponed and temporarily set aside, but not permanently canceled or done away with. It will come at the end of the terrible tribulation period!

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

Is The Kingdom of God The Kingdom of Heaven?

Dr. Couch, what is the relationship of the church with the kingdom of God? And is the kingdom of God synonymous with the kingdom of heaven? Is the church the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven? 

 

    For you to ask this means that you have been brainwashed and that you are listening to false Bible teaching. If you were on a desert island and were only reading your King James Bible (without any notes) you would see that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are 99.9% referenced in the Gospels, and that the references in the church epistles, while mentioning the kingdom, never make the church and the kingdom the same. You have been listening to the Reformed guys who want to get rid of Israel, or replace Israel with the church, and/or say God is through with the Jewish people! 

    You need to get my book Classical Evangelical Heremeneutics (Kregel) and read chapter 22. I objectively prove beyond all doubt that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are the same thing, with two ways of defining and explanation the issues of the coming earthly messianic reign of Christ: “The kingdom coming from God, i.e. the kingdom coming down from heaven.” (Send me $17 and I’ll send you an autographed copy.) 

    The church clearly will be raptured into heaven before the horrible seven-year tribulation. But the church then returns to be with Christ during His Davidic, messianic 1000 year rule on earth. In that sense the church has two destinies. We could be even today, this very moment, suddenly given new bodies and (1) caught up to glory. (2) We will return in our new bodies then to be on earth during the millennial kingdom of God rule. 

    2 Timothy 4:18 shows clearly we are not now in the kingdom but will be in the future. We are headed that way but the church is not it! Christ is not presently on His throne in His kingdom but will be following the tribulation (Rev. 3:21). In this verse we also note that Christ is not on His millennial throne but He’s seated in heaven with the Father on His throne. The verse also shows that church saints will have some form of co-reign with Christ when we come to earth with Him. We are told that “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne …” But this is future and is not happening presently. 

    Of course the allegorical, amillennial guys don’t get it. They ignore what Revelation 3:21 is saying, i.e. they disregard Psalm 110:1. Christ is now seated on the Father’s throne in glory but the earthly messianic throne is another issue. 

    Thanks for asking and yes indeed, you do need my book!

    Dr. Mal Couch

What Is The Meaning of Matthew 21:43, "...the Kingdom of God will be taken from you..."?

Dr. Couch, we know the kingdom of God is promised to Israel, and since the church is not the "new Israel" nor the kingdom, what is the meaning of Matthew 21:43 that reads: "I say to you (the Pharisees), the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to another nation (ethnos) producing the fruit of it"? 

 

   ANSWER: In the NT the overwhelming use of the word ethnos is used in the plural and is generally translated "Gentiles," though sometimes "nations." Or, a few times in the singular "the heathen." Some wrongly have tried to use Peter's words in 1 Peter 2:9-10 to say in these verses he is calling the church "a new" kind of nation. But if o­ne examines closely this passage, this could not be. Peter is writing to Jewish Christians, those among the diaspora or who are residing as "the aliens," "the scattered" among the Gentile Greeks (1:1). Peter then applies Isaiah 61:4-6 and Deuteronomy 10:15 to these new Jewish Christians, because they are now, even in the church, recipients of the blessings of the new covenant. Peter writes

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (ethnos, singular), a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you o­nce were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

    Peter's point is that their generation was rejected because they rejected their own Messiah, but these he is writing to have received mercy and accepted Christ as their Savior. While they are part of the body of Christ, they are also "fulfilled" or completed Jews, fulfilling the purpose God intended for this people, because they have accepted their Messiah! Since the Lord Jesus in Matthew 21:43 is talking about "the kingdom of God" (that is without question distinctly messianic and not the church) that will be taken away from that present generation of Jews and "give to a nation" that will produce fruit, He more than likely is talking about a future generation of Jews, a new and different nation, and not the generation that is standing before Him. This would be the Jews who enter the messianic kingdom when He returns to earth to rule and reign! The Pharisees got it! They knew He was talking about their rejection of Him (v. 45) and they realized that the people knew He was a predictive prophet (v. 46). Since the "kingdom of God" will be an earthly spiritual nation of the Jewish people on earth, the parallel to "kingdom of God" would be "another" nation "equal" to the kingdom of God! (If that makes sense!) It is admitted by all that this is an obscure and not-so-clear verse. And one of the most important rules of good hermeneutics is that you do not establish a doctrine by an obscure or difficult passage of Scripture. I do not have to "fight" over the meaning of Matthew 21:43 in order to uphold the ideal of a literal earthly kingdom yet to come. I have hundreds if not thousands of both OT and NT verses to show that this is yet future. And too, I take the clear meaning of these many, many verses to heart, while the amillennial allegorists have to put into the texts their allegorical interpretations. 

Prophecy scholar Dr. Walvoord writes on this verse: "This should not be construed as a turning away from Israel to the Gentiles." 

 Dr. Toussaint writes: "The 'kingdom of God' always refers to the future millennial kingdom o­n earth." 

 Dr. Gaebelein (a use-to-be allegorist) says: "The nation is Israel still, but [this passage is about] that believing remnant of the nation, living when the Lord comes." 

    I hope this helps and thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch,

Can Flesh and Blood Inherit The Kingdom of God?

Dr. Couch, what is meant in I Corinthians 15:50, "that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable"? 

 

    First of all it must be understood that in every case, “the kingdom of God” is a reference to the coming millennial earthly reign of Christ as Israel’s King! In my interpretation textbook “Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics” (Kregel), I show by scriptural proof this fact. Paul’s context in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with the resurrection, specifically the resurrection of church saints in which we will come back with Him from heaven for this kingdom rule on earth. 

    Whether by the miracle of the resurrection (vv. 42-45), or by the miracle of the rapture of the church, whereby believers now living will be changed (vv. 51-52), we end up on earth ultimately with Him in the Davidic kingdom, the kingdom of God! 

    To see what is going on more clearly in the verse, it is important for me to translate it from the Greek text. It reads: 

          But now I am bringing to light (phami, pres. act. ind. ), brothers, that flesh and blood is not able to “specifically inherit” the kingdom of God; neither the perishable the imperishable is able to be inheriting” [it]. 

   The key word here is inherit which is used twice and means: “To legally be designated, appointed, assigned.” Thus: “flesh and blood cannot be assigned the kingdom of God” and “neither can that which is perishable be assigned what is imperishable.” Since there will be people who are spared in the tribulation and enter the kingdom in their natural bodies, Paul must have something specific in mind here. That which is simply natural or sinful cannot “inherit” (a key word) the kingdom. One enters into the kingdom because he spiritually belongs to Christ, though that believer is existing physically in a natural body. To enter this coming future kingdom of God, one must be born again by faith; one cannot simply enter by being “naturally” born (John 3:1-5). 

    While Paul is addressing the issue of church believers, we know from OT passages that the OT saints will also be resurrected for this coming kingdom reign of Christ, but they are not resurrected as “the body of Christ” but as the saints of Israel who in their life trusted everything that God had said to them. By Christ’s victory at the cross (v. 57) the OT saying “Death is swallowed up in victory” (v. 54; Isa. 25:8; Hosea. 13:14) is applicable to all who will someday be resurrected, both OT and NT saints. Christ’s death has covered the sins of all of humanity, past, present, and future! 

   Thanks for asking,

   Dr. Mal Couch