The whole truth?

puddleglum

Well-known member
Anyone who has studied the Bible much is probably familiar with Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The New Testament tells us that it is a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus.

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us).
Matthew 1:20-23

But if we look at the context in which it appears we will find that it also has another interpretation.

Judah was threatened by an alliance between Israel and Syria and Isaiah had just assured Ahaz the king that he didn’t have anything to fear from them.

Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”

But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.”

And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.”
Isaiah 7:10-16

The purpose of this sign was to tell Ahaz how long it would be before the danger to Judah was ended; the virgin was a woman who was a virgin at the time they were speaking. Isaiah 7:14 had two fulfillments, an immediate one in the time of Ahaz and a long range one when Jesus was born.

Imagine that some time between the death of Isaiah and the birth of Jesus two Bible scholars, Rabbi F and Rabbi P, are discussing this prophecy. Rabbi F claims that this prophecy foretells something that is still in the future. Rabbi P insists that the prophecy has already been fulfilled. From our perspective we can clearly see that both of these views are true but neither one is the whole truth.

The New Testament contains many prophecies about the end of this age and there are different opinions as to how they should be interpreted. Two methods of interpretation are futurism and preterism. Futurists believe they refer to future events but preterists believe that most of them have already been fulfilled. Take this prophecy as an example.

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.

One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast. And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”
Revelation 13:1-4

Futurists believe that this beast is the Antichrist and that the fulfillment of this prophecy is still in the future. Preterists believe that the beast is really the Roman emperor Nero and that this prophecy has been fulfilled.

Do you see the similarity between this disagreement and the argument between Rabbi F and Rabbi P over the meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy? It is possible that the solution to the disagreement is the same; the prophecy has two meanings and refers both to Nero and to a future Antichrist.

I am completely convinced that the futurist interpretation of prophecy is correct. All of Revelation from the beginning of chapter four until the end is about events that will take place after the rapture of the church. However the study of Isaiah’s prophecy has made me consider the possibility that this might not be the only correct interpretation. Perhaps the real difference between futurists and preterists isn’t that one group is right and the other wrong but that each of them sees different parts of the truth.
 

Keraz

Active member
Isaiah 28:10 Prophecy is a little here, a little there.....
So that Prophecy was about Jesus. Scripture doesn't tell us of another virgin birth.

However: there are often precursors then; for a final fulfilment of things far in the future. Nero and the yet to come; Anti-Christ is an example.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Perhaps the real difference between futurists and preterists isn’t that one group is right and the other wrong but that each of them sees different parts of the truth.

I think the real difference is “the Dispensationalist recognizes Israel and the church are to be identified as distinct or separate entities in the plan and program of God”. (Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry)

Whereas a non-Dispensationalist recognizes there is only one entity now (“one new man”) in the plan and program of God.

Ephesians 2:15... Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
 

puddleglum

Well-known member
I think the real difference is “the Dispensationalist recognizes Israel and the church are to be identified as distinct or separate entities in the plan and program of God”. (Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry)

They appear to be separate entities now but the description of the New Jerusalem shows they are one. Revelation 21:12-14 says, "It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
They appear to be separate entities now but the description of the New Jerusalem shows they are one.

Only a Dispensationalist would think “one new man” now appears to be “separate entities” now.

Ephesians 2:15... Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Just to clarify your view...

Has Ephesians 2:15 already taken place?

I say Yes.
 

Arkycharlie

Super Member
Only a Dispensationalist would think “one new man” now appears to be “separate entities” now.

Ephesians 2:15... Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Just to clarify your view...

Has Ephesians 2:15 already taken place?

I say Yes.
Ignorance reigns here. The Ephesians passage relates to the current age of grace. When Christ returns, the age of grace ends and Israel enters her one thousand year millennial kingdom. And anyone who disputes the MK is greatly misinformed. Nothing new about that around here!
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
Anyone who has studied the Bible much is probably familiar with Isaiah 7:14:


The New Testament tells us that it is a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus.



But if we look at the context in which it appears we will find that it also has another interpretation.

Judah was threatened by an alliance between Israel and Syria and Isaiah had just assured Ahaz the king that he didn’t have anything to fear from them.



The purpose of this sign was to tell Ahaz how long it would be before the danger to Judah was ended; the virgin was a woman who was a virgin at the time they were speaking. Isaiah 7:14 had two fulfillments, an immediate one in the time of Ahaz and a long range one when Jesus was born.

Imagine that some time between the death of Isaiah and the birth of Jesus two Bible scholars, Rabbi F and Rabbi P, are discussing this prophecy. Rabbi F claims that this prophecy foretells something that is still in the future. Rabbi P insists that the prophecy has already been fulfilled. From our perspective we can clearly see that both of these views are true but neither one is the whole truth.

The New Testament contains many prophecies about the end of this age and there are different opinions as to how they should be interpreted. Two methods of interpretation are futurism and preterism. Futurists believe they refer to future events but preterists believe that most of them have already been fulfilled. Take this prophecy as an example.



Futurists believe that this beast is the Antichrist and that the fulfillment of this prophecy is still in the future. Preterists believe that the beast is really the Roman emperor Nero and that this prophecy has been fulfilled.

Do you see the similarity between this disagreement and the argument between Rabbi F and Rabbi P over the meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy? It is possible that the solution to the disagreement is the same; the prophecy has two meanings and refers both to Nero and to a future Antichrist.

I am completely convinced that the futurist interpretation of prophecy is correct. All of Revelation from the beginning of chapter four until the end is about events that will take place after the rapture of the church. However the study of Isaiah’s prophecy has made me consider the possibility that this might not be the only correct interpretation. Perhaps the real difference between futurists and preterists isn’t that one group is right and the other wrong but that each of them sees different parts of the truth.
Nero wasn't the antichrist in 68AD scripture clearly teaches this figure is future
 

Hark

Well-known member
I am completely convinced that the futurist interpretation of prophecy is correct. All of Revelation from the beginning of chapter four until the end is about events that will take place after the rapture of the church. However the study of Isaiah’s prophecy has made me consider the possibility that this might not be the only correct interpretation. Perhaps the real difference between futurists and preterists isn’t that one group is right and the other wrong but that each of them sees different parts of the truth.
Only Jesus Christ can confirm or prove His words to you so ask Him today at that throne of grace for help & His wisdom..

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
 

squirrelyguy

Active member
Futurists believe that this beast is the Antichrist and that the fulfillment of this prophecy is still in the future. Preterists believe that the beast is really the Roman emperor Nero and that this prophecy has been fulfilled.

Do you see the similarity between this disagreement and the argument between Rabbi F and Rabbi P over the meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy? It is possible that the solution to the disagreement is the same; the prophecy has two meanings and refers both to Nero and to a future Antichrist.
I believe that Nero both was and will be the antichrist. I believe in a version of what was called in antiquity the Nero Redivivus legend; that is, that Nero will be raised from the dead through the power of Satan and installed as world ruler during the tribulation. I believe this is the most natural interpretation of Revelation 13, as well as 17:7-11.

I guess the crucial difference between what I believe and what the pagans believed in the early centuries is that I don't believe Nero is still alive and being concealed somewhere; but I suppose it is possible as an alternative interpretation of Revelation. If Satan has the power to raise Nero from the dead (which I believe Revelation says he does), then I'm sure it's possible that Satan has actually used his power to keep Nero alive for 2000 years and hidden away. Either way, this would explain why the world is astonished when they see "the beast that was, and is not, and yet is", and they proceed to worship him.
 
Top