50 Years Building His Kingdom - Far Eastern Bible College

. It can be proven that the Hebrew word “almah” was a common term never used in
the Old Testament for anything else except for an unmarried and sexually undefiled
girl (Gen 24:43, Ex 2:8, Ps 68:25, Song of Sol 1:3, Prov 30:19). The word “sign”
implies a miraculous occurrence. It was to be wrought by “The Lord Himself.”
Hence, it could not have been an ordinary birth due to Isaiah’s marriage to a
virgin.
c. The view commonly held by many Neo-evangelicals today is that Isaiah was
prophesying a virgin birth, but one which was to take place in Ahaz’s lifetime, as
a visible sign for him, that God is with His people (Immanuel) to deliver them.
This miraculous birth of a child in Ahaz’s lifetime would be a type of another
virgin birth in the future, ie. the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. There were therefore
two virgin births in history, not just one! This view is based on linking this verse
with verse 16 of the text.
d. This view is unacceptable as it removes the uniqueness of Christ’s virgin birth,
which is one of the main proofs of His Divinity and sinlessness. The name
“Immanuel” (God with us) implies the very incarnation of God Himself. No one
but Jesus Christ can appropriately bear such a name. The sign need not be fulfilled
in Ahaz’s lifetime, as it was given to the “House of David” (Isa 7:13). The
word “(to) you” in Isaiah 7:14 is in the plural form, and therefore cannot refer to
Ahaz alone. The house of David continued to exist up till the time of Jesus Christ
(Mary and Joseph were both descendants of David). There have been no other
virgin births in history. The Strictly Messianic View is the only view that is scriptural.
16. “We do subscribe to the premillennial view of Christ’s second coming (i.e. that Christ
will return and then reign on earth for 1,000 years) which recognises that the specific
promises God made to Israel concerning restoration to their land, with the Temple
rebuilt, will be literally fulfilled to the Israelites, and not fulfilled spiritually in the
Church.”
a. The other views are Postmillennialism and Amillennialism. According to those in
the postmillennialist position, Christ will return after the thousand years and not
before it. According to those in the amillennialist position, there is no literal 1,000
years. It is just a symbol for the present long period of time between Christ’s first
and second coming.
b. The Premillenial view is preferred because it is based on a plain and literal interpretation
of Scripture. If the plain sense of a passage makes good sense, there is
no need for us to seek some hidden or symbolic meaning. The other views are
based on spiritualising or allegorising the text. Furthermore, Premillennialism is
the view that has stood the test of time. It was dominant during the first three
centuries of church history, continued during the Middle Ages, among certain
groups of faithful believers who were against the Roman Catholic Church, revived
in the 17th century by a Calvinist theologian named Johann Heinrich Alsted,
and promoted widely in the last two centuries by the Dispensationalists.
c. The Dispensationalists, however, believe that biblical history is split into many
dispensations. While we disagree with them on this, we do hold to the same brand
of Premillennialism. Their brand is Futuristic and not Historic. This means that
the promises God made to Israel will be fulfilled in Israel, not the Church.
d. Those who hold the Historic brand of Premillennialism believe that the Church is
now Israel in a spiritual sense. Israel is permanently displaced. God is not interested
in them in a special way any more. Jews can only partake of the promises of
God by becoming part of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since the Church
has no part in the land of Israel, all promises of physical blessings like the land,
peace and prosperity are then spiritualised away to mean heaven and the Christian
life.
Page 73