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

Is Baptism Replacing Circumcision?

Dr. Couch, how does dispensationalism differ with the Reformed folks on infant baptism? And is baptism replacing circumcision? 

 

    ANSWER: The heart of dispensationalism is to take the Bible at face value, in its normal grammatical-historical sense. Dispensationalism believes in all the rules for solid hermeneutics but the Reformed people do not. They allegorize second coming prophetic passages, for the most part. Dispensationalists are consistent with the issues of "Progressive revelation, normal interpretation, and studying the Word of God by "context, context, context"! Depensationalism is not a system, it is "a way of life" in that you just take the Bible in its normal sense. Israel means Israel and not the church. Rapture means a "going up," not Christ "coming down" to reign. If you know up from down you are a dispensationalist. The church goes up in the rapture; Christ comes down to rule o­n the Davidic throne over Israel. Read what was told to Mary in Luke 1:30-33. Christ will be reigning over the house of David. The house of David is not the church! Anyone who thinks the house of David is the church is not reading their Bible. When the OT says God brings back the Jews to Jerusalem, this is not the gathering of the church! IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS! Now to your questions: 

    Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, though it was also later after the time of Abraham included as part of the Law system. It was not a sign of salvation, as baptism is. Baptism does not replace circumcision because that would cut out 50% of the population being baptized, women! 

    As for infant baptism passages, you cannot find any! Read Acts 2:38-39 carefully. (This is what dispensationalists do!) The passage urges the Jews to do something actual and literal. "Repent (individually) each o­ne of you for the forgiveness of your sins." This is a conscious act. This "promise" of forgiveness "is for you and your children." The promise includes the action of the o­ne receiving forgiveness—repenting. You cannot foist that blessing of forgiveness over o­nto your children, your infants, unless they can consciously "repent." And they cannot! 

    About infant baptism you cannot use the story of Cornelius and his household. Peter said when in that house "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). The Spirit fell o­n "all those who were listening to the message," not o­n the little infants who could not process that message. (1) those who believed, (2) received the Spirit, and (3) were baptized. 

    About infant baptism you cannot use the story of the jailer at Philippi. He asked Paul, "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). THERE IT IS! INFANT BAPTISM within the household! Keep reading. Paul and Silas preached the word of the Lord "to him together with all who were in his household." The word "was preached and heard" by the household. This would not be small infants who could not process the message! Note verse 34: "they" in the house rejoiced greatly, "having believed in God with his whole household." The Greek is saying "the whole household" believed along with the jailer. 

    Infant baptism will not fly! Unfortunately, the Reformed, following Luther and Calvin, just carried infant over from Catholicism, though in some ways, not with the same heavy punch as is in Romanism. It is unfortunate too, that they do not admit this. While I am most grateful of what these men did for us, I do not follow them blindly, as many Reformed people do. It is almost as if, "Since Calvin said it, it must be true." 

   Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch

Is Sunday the Sabbath?

Dr. Couch, what do you think of those who hold we should today be under the Sabbath? Also, some of the Reformed folks say Sunday is the Sabbath. This seems all very unbiblical. What do you think? 

 

   ANSWER: Yes, yes, and yes! You are right on! Your question just throws more light on why the Reformed people are off in so many places, especially with their unbiblical “Covenant theology” position. Only dispensationalism makes it clear how the Bible goes forward, and shows without a doubt we are not under any part of the Law. 

    The New Testament makes it clear that the early church met on the first day of the week (Sunday) and not on the Sabbath (Saturday). Check out Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. Down through church history this became the norm for all the assemblies. Though it must be pointed out there is no “moral command” in the New Testament to meet on any particular day; this is just what the church did. Clearly, they were moving away from Sabbath meetings that were more Jewish and “synagogue” in nature. 

   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

Are Dispensationalists Judaizing The Prophecies By Taking Them Literally?

Dr. Couch, I hear some Reformed folks criticize dispensationalists and say that they are but Judaizing the prophecies by taking them literally, as the orthodox Jews did. How do we answer? 

 

    The orthodox and pious Jews, along with Christ and the disciples, took all the words of the OT prophets in a literal manner. They looked for the Messiah to both die for the sins of the people, but also to reign and rule on the throne of David over Israel and the entire world. Christ’s first coming was literal and historic, and His second coming will be literal and historic. The NT confirms this in so many places but it also “assumes” this fact from the OT, and therefore does not have to continually repeat over and over again all the details of His second coming. 

    Take for example the following in the NT: 

      “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, He will sit on His glorious throne” (Matt. 25:31). 

       God will “send Jesus the Christ appointed for you (Israel), whom heaven must receive until the  period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient times” (Acts 3:20-21).

       “Christ also having been offered once to bear the sins of many, SHALL APPEAR A

  SECOND TIME for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him”

       (Heb. 9:28). 

    The orthodox Jews believe everything dispensationalists believe except they do not believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. They believe in a worldwide tribulation, an antichrist, a regathering of repenting and believing Israel, a judgment of the nations, the reign of the Messiah in restored Israel. Dispensationalists are in good “interpretative” company. It is the Reformed guys who use pagan Greek allegory to rewrite what the Bible says in the OT about the earthly reign of the Messiah! They replace the promises to Israel with the church. The church becomes the “new” Israel and God is through with the Jews!

   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