It's interesting to see the way the Apostles interpreted prophecy. They almost always explained the manner in which the prophecies were fulfilled through the Gospel without expecting some second fulfilment of it far in their future.
I can't think of a precedent in the Bible for the double-fulfilment hermeneutic.
"A virgin shall conceive" is the usual example given. But that prophecy has only ever had one historical fulfilment - unless we say "virgin" merely meant "young woman" - but that then that has the effect of removing the prophetic basis for asserting Jesus' unique birth and divinity.
"They pierced my hands and my feet" is another popular example - but that never literally happened to David. But "being a prophet," explained Peter, "he [David] spoke NOT about himself, but he foresaw the sufferings of Christ". So the Psalm didn't refer first to David and secondly to Christ - rather it referred NOT to David but to Christ, explained Peter. Only one not two historical fulfilment.
If we allow a second historical fulfilment of a prophesied event, without referencing an Apostle interpreting the prophecy that way, then what's to stop us claiming a third and fourth fulfilment? We would never really be able to say with any authority and finality whether or not a prophecy has been fulfilled.
I think there's a difference between fulfilment and application. A prophesied event might have a single FULFILMENT - yet we can APPLY lessons learned from it in multiple situations.
As a rule of thumb, I think any prophecy which mentions Old Covenant disctinctives (such as the Temple, altar, Levites, sacrifices, offerings, pots, seething, and Jerusalem being the required place of worship - that part of the prophecy must have found its fulfilment WHILE THE OLD COVENANT STILL STOOD.
No comments:
Post a Comment