Hi Steve,
This question is about prophecy in general, but I didn't find a better category for it.
The question is: Is a certain prophecy considered fulfilled when it reaches one fulfillment, or are several fulfillments possible? (Some views even categorize these successive fulfillments as "major and minor fulfillments).
The reason for the question: When some people have shared their views with me, they have based a few points on the notion that some prophecies have multiple fulfillments. However, I can't find this notion in the Bible.
I am a Christian who hasn't been studying seriously for a long time, so I'm not sure if there is some key prophecy that, either implicitly or explicitly, demands for successive fulfillments, on which some essential of our faith hangs. Something like this would certainly prove their point.
If you need a specific example, I would be glad to provide one. Thanks,
Multiple fulfillments?
-
_AlexRodriguez
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:00 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Multiple fulfillments?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Alex Rodríguez
Hi Alex,
From my youth, I have heard that prophecies often have dual-fulfillments or multiple fulfillments, and I think most Christians hear this, eventually, and assume it to be true.
It is a point often raised on occasions when I or someone else present the evidence that the things presented in the Olivet Discourse (Matt.24) or in the Book of Revelation have already historically been fulfilled in the first century. Most people's initial reaction to this suggestion is skepticism. However, as the documentation of the the evidence overwhelms their denial, most come to the place of reluctant acquiescence--but they still want to hold-out for their prior opinion, which was that these things belong to a future tribulation period. Inevitably they ask, "Even if these things did happen in the first century, could it be that there is a secondary fulfillment yet to come?"
In looking at the prophecies of the Old Testament, it becomes clear that the majority of them have already been fulfilled in the past. Whether we look at the 300 fulfilled prophecies about the Messiah, or the predictions of the fall of kingdoms like Moab, Edom, Assyria, Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, etc., we must acknowledge that the same God who spoke these things has already proven His sovereignty and His integrity in bringing them to pass. There seems no reason whatsoever to look for secondary fulfillments: Edom, Moab and Philistia have all fallen, and needn't fall again; Jesus was born in Bethlehem, was announced by John the Baptist, was crucified and glorified, as predicted, and needn't do any of these things a second time; etc.
On the other hand, it is possible to identify a few instances where it appears that a prediction had more than one fulfillment, or was fulfilled in more than one increment. I know of only two such cases in scripture:
The first is the promise made to David concerning the son who would sit upon his throne after his death and would build a house for the Lord (2 Sam.7:12ff). This prediction, to a large extent, appears to be fulfilled in Solomon, but Hebrews 1:5 indicates that there is a reference there to Christ.
The second is the prophecy of the virgin's child (Isaiah 7:14), which appears to have been fulfilled in Isaiah, chapter 8, in the birth of Isaiah's second son, but which Matthew 1:22-23 identifies as also being fulfilled in Jesus' birth.
It is not certain whether it is better to see these two cases as examples supporting an arbitrary principle of "multiple fulfillment" (in which case, they might even have any number of additional fulfillments yet to come!), or rather, as examples of "typological" fulfillment. That is, the first fulfillment is seen as a "type" and an earnest of the ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah, who is Himself the antitype.
In such a case, Messiah is the true fulfillment, but is foreshadowed by the short-term, incomplete fulfillments seen in the Old Testament events. This would suggest, not that there were two unrelated fulfillments, but that the fulfillment came in two parts--type and antitype. If this is the correct way of seeing it, then there would be no sense in looking for additional fulfillments, since the prophecies have reached their culmination in Christ.
I would point out that the only reason we know that these two prophecies had a "secondary" aspect to be fulfilled in Christ, is because we are informed of it by the inspired writers of the New Testament. Without this witness, any suggestion of secondary fulfillments of historically-fulfilled prophecies would be mere human speculation.
Therefore, whichever way we look at these examples, they do not provide a basis for looking for multiple fulfillments of prophecies, in general. Least of all do they give us warrant to postulate speculative additional future fulfillments of specific predictions that have already found complete fulfillment in history.
As for the Olivet Discourse, the majority of it is known to have been fulfilled in what Jesus referred to as "this generation," that is, no later than AD 70 (Matt.24:34). In that same dicourse, Jesus said that the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, in AD 70, would occur so that "all things which are written may be fulfilled" (Luke 21:20-22).
Taken at face value, this would seem to mean that, not only the Olivet Discourse, but also all things written in Old Testament prophecy were fulfilled in that historic event. There is no suggestion in scripture that additional fulfillments of these things should be sought. Therefore, only unfounded speculation can lead to the expectation of future fulfillment of these passages.
To summarize:
1. There is no reason to look for multiple fulfillments of biblical prophecies generally;
2. There are two known cases of prophecies that seem to have two phases to their fulfillment;
3. Even those two find their final fulfillments in Christ, and no prophecy of the Old Testament can be certainly said to look beyond the first century for its fulfillment or inauguration;
4. Any expectation to see future fulfillments of prophecies that are known to have been fulfilled in history is not based upon scripture but on human speculation.
From my youth, I have heard that prophecies often have dual-fulfillments or multiple fulfillments, and I think most Christians hear this, eventually, and assume it to be true.
It is a point often raised on occasions when I or someone else present the evidence that the things presented in the Olivet Discourse (Matt.24) or in the Book of Revelation have already historically been fulfilled in the first century. Most people's initial reaction to this suggestion is skepticism. However, as the documentation of the the evidence overwhelms their denial, most come to the place of reluctant acquiescence--but they still want to hold-out for their prior opinion, which was that these things belong to a future tribulation period. Inevitably they ask, "Even if these things did happen in the first century, could it be that there is a secondary fulfillment yet to come?"
In looking at the prophecies of the Old Testament, it becomes clear that the majority of them have already been fulfilled in the past. Whether we look at the 300 fulfilled prophecies about the Messiah, or the predictions of the fall of kingdoms like Moab, Edom, Assyria, Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, etc., we must acknowledge that the same God who spoke these things has already proven His sovereignty and His integrity in bringing them to pass. There seems no reason whatsoever to look for secondary fulfillments: Edom, Moab and Philistia have all fallen, and needn't fall again; Jesus was born in Bethlehem, was announced by John the Baptist, was crucified and glorified, as predicted, and needn't do any of these things a second time; etc.
On the other hand, it is possible to identify a few instances where it appears that a prediction had more than one fulfillment, or was fulfilled in more than one increment. I know of only two such cases in scripture:
The first is the promise made to David concerning the son who would sit upon his throne after his death and would build a house for the Lord (2 Sam.7:12ff). This prediction, to a large extent, appears to be fulfilled in Solomon, but Hebrews 1:5 indicates that there is a reference there to Christ.
The second is the prophecy of the virgin's child (Isaiah 7:14), which appears to have been fulfilled in Isaiah, chapter 8, in the birth of Isaiah's second son, but which Matthew 1:22-23 identifies as also being fulfilled in Jesus' birth.
It is not certain whether it is better to see these two cases as examples supporting an arbitrary principle of "multiple fulfillment" (in which case, they might even have any number of additional fulfillments yet to come!), or rather, as examples of "typological" fulfillment. That is, the first fulfillment is seen as a "type" and an earnest of the ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah, who is Himself the antitype.
In such a case, Messiah is the true fulfillment, but is foreshadowed by the short-term, incomplete fulfillments seen in the Old Testament events. This would suggest, not that there were two unrelated fulfillments, but that the fulfillment came in two parts--type and antitype. If this is the correct way of seeing it, then there would be no sense in looking for additional fulfillments, since the prophecies have reached their culmination in Christ.
I would point out that the only reason we know that these two prophecies had a "secondary" aspect to be fulfilled in Christ, is because we are informed of it by the inspired writers of the New Testament. Without this witness, any suggestion of secondary fulfillments of historically-fulfilled prophecies would be mere human speculation.
Therefore, whichever way we look at these examples, they do not provide a basis for looking for multiple fulfillments of prophecies, in general. Least of all do they give us warrant to postulate speculative additional future fulfillments of specific predictions that have already found complete fulfillment in history.
As for the Olivet Discourse, the majority of it is known to have been fulfilled in what Jesus referred to as "this generation," that is, no later than AD 70 (Matt.24:34). In that same dicourse, Jesus said that the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, in AD 70, would occur so that "all things which are written may be fulfilled" (Luke 21:20-22).
Taken at face value, this would seem to mean that, not only the Olivet Discourse, but also all things written in Old Testament prophecy were fulfilled in that historic event. There is no suggestion in scripture that additional fulfillments of these things should be sought. Therefore, only unfounded speculation can lead to the expectation of future fulfillment of these passages.
To summarize:
1. There is no reason to look for multiple fulfillments of biblical prophecies generally;
2. There are two known cases of prophecies that seem to have two phases to their fulfillment;
3. Even those two find their final fulfillments in Christ, and no prophecy of the Old Testament can be certainly said to look beyond the first century for its fulfillment or inauguration;
4. Any expectation to see future fulfillments of prophecies that are known to have been fulfilled in history is not based upon scripture but on human speculation.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Alex!
I wanted to chip in and try to give you an answer of my own. My opinion will differ somewhat from Steve's, so I would encourage you to read what we both have to say and pray about it. Hopefully both of us will have something valuable to add to the picture.
As far as multiple fulfillments goes, a classic example is Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah prophesied a sign to King Ahaz of the birth of a child named Immanuel. This prophecy was later applied to Jesus in Matthew 1:23.
For someone casually reading the bible, the citation in Matthew 1:23 looks like a 'proof text.' In other words, it seems like there's nothing to connect the events of Jesus' birth with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 other than the Gospel writer's say-so. So first of all, how can we tell that this was legitimately a fulfillment of prophecy?
The answer to this will actually answer your question as well, concerning multiple fulfillments.
Let's go back and look at the historical context of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. At this time, the United Kingdom of Israel had been torn in half and was in a sort of 'cold war' with itself. There was the northern kingdom, which retained the name of Israel and consisted of ten of the twelve original tribes descended from Jacob, and the southern kingdom, which consisted of Judah and Benjamin, plus some of the priestly tribe of Levi. (Yes, I know that makes 13 tribes, but that's another story.) Now, Israel had originally wanted a military alliance with Judah against the rising power of Assyria. Assyria was infamous for its cruelty to the peoples it conquered, and it was sending out armies across the lands and conquering on a massive scale. Israel lay directly in its path, but Judah wasn't (yet) being threatened. Since Judah wasn't at risk, they didn't want to anger Assyria and create a problem for themselves. They decided against an alliance and left Israel to its own devices.
Israel made an alliance with Syria instead. Together, they entered into a conspiracy to assassinate the king of Judah and put a puppet king on its throne - the 'son of Tabeal' in Isaiah 7:6 - so that they could get the military alliance that they wanted to protect themselves against Assyria.
Isaiah denounced a military solution, however. Instead, it was important to trust in God to deliver them all from certain destruction, rather than in force of arms! Not only that, but God had promised that the royal dynasty of King David would endure forever. To allow this assassination to take place would break that promise.
King Ahaz was a wicked king who didn't want to trust in God. Nevertheless, Isaiah told him that the assassination attempt and the alliance would not come to pass. He only needed to trust in God to handle it. Knowing that King Ahaz wasn't being obedient to God and trusting God already, Isaiah even told him to ask a sign from God as proof! But King Ahaz refused to do that.
It's after all of this that we have the famous prophecy. I'll quote verses 14-16 here:
"Therefore [because King Ahaz wouldn't even trust enough to ask for a sign] the Lord Himself will give you a sign [anyway]. Lo! A virgin will conceive and bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel [Hebrew for 'God is with us']. He will eat butter and honey so that he might learn to reject what is evil and choose what is good. But before the child will know to reject what is evil and choose what is good [e.g, before he's mature enough to be held responsible for knowing the difference between good and evil], the land that you are afraid of [Israel and Syria] will lose both of her kings."
Pretty impressive, given the context, isn't it?
Let me explain why God was doing this, and what He hoped to show. King Ahaz, like many people today, grew up distrustful. For whatever reason - be it disappointment in his parents, difficult circumstances, betrayal by someone he'd trusted, or what-have-you - Ahaz refused to put his trust in anyone, especially God. The only person he could trust was himself, basically. But this child named Immanuel was to be the diametric opposite. He would be trusting in every way. He'd learn to trust in his parents' provision for him, because they would feed him with "butter and honey" - figuratively, the best of the best - even in the midst of a siege situation where the 'good things in life' were scarce and hard to come by! His father Isaiah and his mother the prophetess would deliberately and consciously cultivate a trusting spirit in their son Immanuel as a sign to King Ahaz that he was going about things the wrong way! And moreover, God would prove to Ahaz that He was as good as His word, even though King Ahaz wasn't putting his trust in Him.
There's a direct parallel with Jesus and His circumstances, here. The nation of Judea in Jesus' time was under the dominion of the Romans, who were often cruel and wicked in how they ruled. The Jews wanted nothing more than to throw off the yoke of Roman rulership. Knowing that the Messiah's coming was near because of Daniel's 70-weeks' prophecy, they were looking for a military leader to defeat their enemies and usher in an eternal kingdom on this earth. BUT...they weren't willing to trust in God to work things out HIS way.
By applying the prophecy of Immanuel to Jesus, we're to understand that He came and lived in perfect trust of God the Father, even to the point of making the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of His people. He loved His people so much that He was willing to suffer rejection, humiliation and crucifixion for a greater purpose. His life and death were meant as a sign that, no matter how difficult circumstances might be, it's still important to put one's trust in God and nowhere else. Not in military might - because that's what both King Ahaz and the Jews of Jesus' time were looking to to solve their problems.
Now, to answer your question directly, we sometimes have multiple fulfillments in the bible because God uses different circumstances, events, and people to teach the exact same lessons over and over again until people get the point. The Jews of Isaiah's time didn't really get the point. At best, only a small fraction of them did. The Jews of Jesus' time didn't get the point either. Even though we read about "thousands" of Jews coming to Christ in the first few chapters of the book of Acts, that's still miniscule compared to the Jewish population of Judea together with the Diaspora (the Jews living in other countries) in the first century AD.
When will they all en-masse get the point? Well, that's another story. But believe it or not, it actually involves an end-time fulfillment of this same prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14-16: the birth of Elijah the prophet. He, together with his brother Moses (whose birth is an end-time fulfillment of Isaiah 8:1-4), will preach to the Jews in Jerusalem just prior to the return of Jesus Christ.
This last time, they'll get it.
Damon
I wanted to chip in and try to give you an answer of my own. My opinion will differ somewhat from Steve's, so I would encourage you to read what we both have to say and pray about it. Hopefully both of us will have something valuable to add to the picture.
As far as multiple fulfillments goes, a classic example is Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah prophesied a sign to King Ahaz of the birth of a child named Immanuel. This prophecy was later applied to Jesus in Matthew 1:23.
For someone casually reading the bible, the citation in Matthew 1:23 looks like a 'proof text.' In other words, it seems like there's nothing to connect the events of Jesus' birth with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 other than the Gospel writer's say-so. So first of all, how can we tell that this was legitimately a fulfillment of prophecy?
The answer to this will actually answer your question as well, concerning multiple fulfillments.
Let's go back and look at the historical context of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. At this time, the United Kingdom of Israel had been torn in half and was in a sort of 'cold war' with itself. There was the northern kingdom, which retained the name of Israel and consisted of ten of the twelve original tribes descended from Jacob, and the southern kingdom, which consisted of Judah and Benjamin, plus some of the priestly tribe of Levi. (Yes, I know that makes 13 tribes, but that's another story.) Now, Israel had originally wanted a military alliance with Judah against the rising power of Assyria. Assyria was infamous for its cruelty to the peoples it conquered, and it was sending out armies across the lands and conquering on a massive scale. Israel lay directly in its path, but Judah wasn't (yet) being threatened. Since Judah wasn't at risk, they didn't want to anger Assyria and create a problem for themselves. They decided against an alliance and left Israel to its own devices.
Israel made an alliance with Syria instead. Together, they entered into a conspiracy to assassinate the king of Judah and put a puppet king on its throne - the 'son of Tabeal' in Isaiah 7:6 - so that they could get the military alliance that they wanted to protect themselves against Assyria.
Isaiah denounced a military solution, however. Instead, it was important to trust in God to deliver them all from certain destruction, rather than in force of arms! Not only that, but God had promised that the royal dynasty of King David would endure forever. To allow this assassination to take place would break that promise.
King Ahaz was a wicked king who didn't want to trust in God. Nevertheless, Isaiah told him that the assassination attempt and the alliance would not come to pass. He only needed to trust in God to handle it. Knowing that King Ahaz wasn't being obedient to God and trusting God already, Isaiah even told him to ask a sign from God as proof! But King Ahaz refused to do that.
It's after all of this that we have the famous prophecy. I'll quote verses 14-16 here:
"Therefore [because King Ahaz wouldn't even trust enough to ask for a sign] the Lord Himself will give you a sign [anyway]. Lo! A virgin will conceive and bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel [Hebrew for 'God is with us']. He will eat butter and honey so that he might learn to reject what is evil and choose what is good. But before the child will know to reject what is evil and choose what is good [e.g, before he's mature enough to be held responsible for knowing the difference between good and evil], the land that you are afraid of [Israel and Syria] will lose both of her kings."
Pretty impressive, given the context, isn't it?
Let me explain why God was doing this, and what He hoped to show. King Ahaz, like many people today, grew up distrustful. For whatever reason - be it disappointment in his parents, difficult circumstances, betrayal by someone he'd trusted, or what-have-you - Ahaz refused to put his trust in anyone, especially God. The only person he could trust was himself, basically. But this child named Immanuel was to be the diametric opposite. He would be trusting in every way. He'd learn to trust in his parents' provision for him, because they would feed him with "butter and honey" - figuratively, the best of the best - even in the midst of a siege situation where the 'good things in life' were scarce and hard to come by! His father Isaiah and his mother the prophetess would deliberately and consciously cultivate a trusting spirit in their son Immanuel as a sign to King Ahaz that he was going about things the wrong way! And moreover, God would prove to Ahaz that He was as good as His word, even though King Ahaz wasn't putting his trust in Him.
There's a direct parallel with Jesus and His circumstances, here. The nation of Judea in Jesus' time was under the dominion of the Romans, who were often cruel and wicked in how they ruled. The Jews wanted nothing more than to throw off the yoke of Roman rulership. Knowing that the Messiah's coming was near because of Daniel's 70-weeks' prophecy, they were looking for a military leader to defeat their enemies and usher in an eternal kingdom on this earth. BUT...they weren't willing to trust in God to work things out HIS way.
By applying the prophecy of Immanuel to Jesus, we're to understand that He came and lived in perfect trust of God the Father, even to the point of making the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of His people. He loved His people so much that He was willing to suffer rejection, humiliation and crucifixion for a greater purpose. His life and death were meant as a sign that, no matter how difficult circumstances might be, it's still important to put one's trust in God and nowhere else. Not in military might - because that's what both King Ahaz and the Jews of Jesus' time were looking to to solve their problems.
Now, to answer your question directly, we sometimes have multiple fulfillments in the bible because God uses different circumstances, events, and people to teach the exact same lessons over and over again until people get the point. The Jews of Isaiah's time didn't really get the point. At best, only a small fraction of them did. The Jews of Jesus' time didn't get the point either. Even though we read about "thousands" of Jews coming to Christ in the first few chapters of the book of Acts, that's still miniscule compared to the Jewish population of Judea together with the Diaspora (the Jews living in other countries) in the first century AD.
When will they all en-masse get the point? Well, that's another story. But believe it or not, it actually involves an end-time fulfillment of this same prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14-16: the birth of Elijah the prophet. He, together with his brother Moses (whose birth is an end-time fulfillment of Isaiah 8:1-4), will preach to the Jews in Jerusalem just prior to the return of Jesus Christ.
This last time, they'll get it.
Damon
Last edited by jaiotu on Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_AlexRodriguez
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:00 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Hi Damon, thanks so much for your response.
I appreciate your response. I have some follow up questions for you. Even though what you say about the one prophecy applying to both Immanuel and Yeshua makes a lot of sense, I still find the notion of multiple fulfillments troublesome for two reasons:
1) I feel that it opens the door for some subjectivity as far as considering any event "one of" the true fulfillments of a certain prophecy. Based on this, can we only consider an event as one of the true fulfillments, if and only if they are associated as so in Scripture (like your example)?
2) As far as interpreting Scripture, would you say that all prophecies call for a number of fulfillments? What is that number? (If your answer to question 1 is "yes", then I guess that would answer this question as well).
Again, thanks.
I appreciate your response. I have some follow up questions for you. Even though what you say about the one prophecy applying to both Immanuel and Yeshua makes a lot of sense, I still find the notion of multiple fulfillments troublesome for two reasons:
1) I feel that it opens the door for some subjectivity as far as considering any event "one of" the true fulfillments of a certain prophecy. Based on this, can we only consider an event as one of the true fulfillments, if and only if they are associated as so in Scripture (like your example)?
2) As far as interpreting Scripture, would you say that all prophecies call for a number of fulfillments? What is that number? (If your answer to question 1 is "yes", then I guess that would answer this question as well).
Again, thanks.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Alex Rodríguez
Well, as far as your first question goes, I want to point out something that Isaiah had and that Matthew had that we don't have today. They had direct inspiration from God as their authority to both prophesy and interpret prophecy.
A lot of people are unaware that the first century churches were, by and large, led by prophets. The following is a quote from the Didache, which is a historical account of Christianity dating back to the first century AD:
Chapter 13
"But every true prophet desiring to settle among you is worthy of his food. In like manner a true teacher is also worthy, like the workman, of his food. Every first-fruit then of the produce of the wine-vat and of the threshing-floor, of your oxen and of your sheep, you shall take and give as the first-fruit to the prophets; for they are your chief-priests. But if you do not have a prophet, give them to the poor."
Prophets were ordained of old by God for the purpose of correction and leadership. Not every local congregation had a prophet. Some only had bishops. Nevertheless, they are spiritually called the congregations' "chief priests".
Unfortunately, after the first century there were few, if any, Christian prophets who led local congregations. Whereas they would have had the direct inspiration and hence the authority to interpret prophecies and reapply them to current or future events as appropriate, we don't have that authority today.
By the way, even the leader of the local congregation at Rome in the first century AD was a prophet! But the succession of prophets who led the congregation at Rome was broken at the beginning of the second century AD. The Catholic Church correctly preserves the institution of authority in speaking "ex post cathedra," but they've forgotten where that authority really came from.
As far as your second question, my answer is the same. We really don't have direct inspiration from God today to be able to answer that question definitively. However, I do believe that, before Christ returns, God will pour out His Spirit and the various churches and sects of Christianity will once again be led by prophets. When that comes to pass, we'll be able to sort out the doctrinal issues once and for all. In the meantime, even if we as Christians can't know something for sure and, as members of different denominations, might disagree on doctrinal as well as prophetic issues, love should nevertheless be our rule.
Damon
A lot of people are unaware that the first century churches were, by and large, led by prophets. The following is a quote from the Didache, which is a historical account of Christianity dating back to the first century AD:
Chapter 13
"But every true prophet desiring to settle among you is worthy of his food. In like manner a true teacher is also worthy, like the workman, of his food. Every first-fruit then of the produce of the wine-vat and of the threshing-floor, of your oxen and of your sheep, you shall take and give as the first-fruit to the prophets; for they are your chief-priests. But if you do not have a prophet, give them to the poor."
Prophets were ordained of old by God for the purpose of correction and leadership. Not every local congregation had a prophet. Some only had bishops. Nevertheless, they are spiritually called the congregations' "chief priests".
Unfortunately, after the first century there were few, if any, Christian prophets who led local congregations. Whereas they would have had the direct inspiration and hence the authority to interpret prophecies and reapply them to current or future events as appropriate, we don't have that authority today.
By the way, even the leader of the local congregation at Rome in the first century AD was a prophet! But the succession of prophets who led the congregation at Rome was broken at the beginning of the second century AD. The Catholic Church correctly preserves the institution of authority in speaking "ex post cathedra," but they've forgotten where that authority really came from.
As far as your second question, my answer is the same. We really don't have direct inspiration from God today to be able to answer that question definitively. However, I do believe that, before Christ returns, God will pour out His Spirit and the various churches and sects of Christianity will once again be led by prophets. When that comes to pass, we'll be able to sort out the doctrinal issues once and for all. In the meantime, even if we as Christians can't know something for sure and, as members of different denominations, might disagree on doctrinal as well as prophetic issues, love should nevertheless be our rule.
Damon
Last edited by jaiotu on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_AlexRodriguez
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:00 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Thanks!
Steve,
Thanks for your response!
Lord Jesus bless you.
Thanks for your response!
Lord Jesus bless you.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Alex Rodríguez
Just a final word, Alex. Steve Gregg comes from what's called an 'amillenial' perspective, whereas I generally come from what's called a 'premillenial' perspective. The amillenial perspective basically says that every prophecy was fulfilled either in Christ, in His first coming, or in connection with His first coming - that is, in events which occured in the first century AD (such as the destruction of the Temple). The premillenial perspective says that we are to expect future fulfillments of prophecies, including - for instance - the literal fulfillment of the promises that were made to national Israel. While I acknowledge the validity of the amillenial view, I don't think it's the whole picture.
Steve Gregg and I look at these two perspectives in two different ways. For Steve, it's a matter of not wishing to speculate on things we can't be sure about - and I respect that attitude, by the way. But for me, it's a matter of putting myself into the shoes of the people that God made promises to. If I were them, how would I feel if I found that the promises made to me weren't literally going to come to pass, but only metaphorically or in a way that wouldn't even apply to me personally? I'd be upset and I would think that God misled me by omission.
Whichever perspective you choose to subscribe to, just know that we don't have all of the answers right now. There's no arbiter to say which perspective is right and which one is wrong. We're all doing the best we can with what we have, and what we don't have right now is direct, divine inspiration and authority which would sort out these difficulties.
I would again encourage you to pray and let the Holy Spirit guide you in your understanding.
Damon
Steve Gregg and I look at these two perspectives in two different ways. For Steve, it's a matter of not wishing to speculate on things we can't be sure about - and I respect that attitude, by the way. But for me, it's a matter of putting myself into the shoes of the people that God made promises to. If I were them, how would I feel if I found that the promises made to me weren't literally going to come to pass, but only metaphorically or in a way that wouldn't even apply to me personally? I'd be upset and I would think that God misled me by omission.
Whichever perspective you choose to subscribe to, just know that we don't have all of the answers right now. There's no arbiter to say which perspective is right and which one is wrong. We're all doing the best we can with what we have, and what we don't have right now is direct, divine inspiration and authority which would sort out these difficulties.
I would again encourage you to pray and let the Holy Spirit guide you in your understanding.
Damon
Last edited by jaiotu on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_AlexRodriguez
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:00 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Damon,
I appreciate the humility in your response. I have to admit that up to this point I tend towards the amillenial view, but I have not studied these issues to a point where I can be definitive . . . in other words, I am still very open to listen to all interpretations. Plus, I am in no rush to label myself, as I do not understand this to be essential.
I will take your encouragement to continue praying about these things, as I have up to now.
To continue the topic rolling . . . you said:
"If I were them, how would I feel if I found that the promises made to me weren't literally going to come to pass, but only metaphorically or in a way that wouldn't even apply to me personally? I'd be upset and I would think that God misled me by omission."
Would you care to give me an example (or more than one, if you can) of what promise(s) God has made to the nation of Israel, that cannot be considered as fulfilled from what we know from the coming of Messiah, as well as what we know from history?
Another question: do you have any reasons to believe that the prophecies made to God's people need to be fulfilled in Jews exclusively, apart from the Gentile believers?
Thanks for taking my questions seriously! Lord bless you!
I appreciate the humility in your response. I have to admit that up to this point I tend towards the amillenial view, but I have not studied these issues to a point where I can be definitive . . . in other words, I am still very open to listen to all interpretations. Plus, I am in no rush to label myself, as I do not understand this to be essential.
I will take your encouragement to continue praying about these things, as I have up to now.
To continue the topic rolling . . . you said:
"If I were them, how would I feel if I found that the promises made to me weren't literally going to come to pass, but only metaphorically or in a way that wouldn't even apply to me personally? I'd be upset and I would think that God misled me by omission."
Would you care to give me an example (or more than one, if you can) of what promise(s) God has made to the nation of Israel, that cannot be considered as fulfilled from what we know from the coming of Messiah, as well as what we know from history?
Another question: do you have any reasons to believe that the prophecies made to God's people need to be fulfilled in Jews exclusively, apart from the Gentile believers?
Thanks for taking my questions seriously! Lord bless you!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Alex Rodríguez
Hi Damon,
While formulating your answer to Alex, please consider the following:
The promises were made to the believing remnant of Israel (Ps.50:5, 16-17/ Rom.9:27), and they were fulfilled spiritually to that very remnant in Christ, when they embraced Him (Luke 1:68-70/ Gal.3:16, 29/ 2 Cor.1:20/ Rom.15:8).
The Jews who did not embrace the Messiah were not part of the believing remnant. Therefore they are not the group to whom the promises were made (Ps.50:16-17/ Gal.4:25-26, 30-31), have no claim upon them, and would thus have no reason to be disappointed at not having them literally fulfilled.
On the other hand, those of the believing remnant, to whom the promises were made, and to whom they were fulfilled, can hardly be expected to be disappointed to learn that the promise of a promised land was fulfilled in a heavenly country (Heb.11:16), and the promises of a redeemed Jerusalem apply to a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Heb.11:10; 12:22-23), or that the promised good shepherd was not David, but Jesus (John 10:11).
Not only would I not see anything in these developments to disappoint them, but I see no evidence that the Jews of the first century who came into these promises were ever disappointed with a fuller fulfillment than what they had expected (except that it took some time for them to get used to the fact that believing Gentiles were equal heirs with them of these promises).
Therefore, I doubt that any Jew had occasion to complain or be disillusioned by the manner in which the Bible tells us God fulfilled the Abrahamic and Davidic promises.
Blessings!
While formulating your answer to Alex, please consider the following:
The promises were made to the believing remnant of Israel (Ps.50:5, 16-17/ Rom.9:27), and they were fulfilled spiritually to that very remnant in Christ, when they embraced Him (Luke 1:68-70/ Gal.3:16, 29/ 2 Cor.1:20/ Rom.15:8).
The Jews who did not embrace the Messiah were not part of the believing remnant. Therefore they are not the group to whom the promises were made (Ps.50:16-17/ Gal.4:25-26, 30-31), have no claim upon them, and would thus have no reason to be disappointed at not having them literally fulfilled.
On the other hand, those of the believing remnant, to whom the promises were made, and to whom they were fulfilled, can hardly be expected to be disappointed to learn that the promise of a promised land was fulfilled in a heavenly country (Heb.11:16), and the promises of a redeemed Jerusalem apply to a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Heb.11:10; 12:22-23), or that the promised good shepherd was not David, but Jesus (John 10:11).
Not only would I not see anything in these developments to disappoint them, but I see no evidence that the Jews of the first century who came into these promises were ever disappointed with a fuller fulfillment than what they had expected (except that it took some time for them to get used to the fact that believing Gentiles were equal heirs with them of these promises).
Therefore, I doubt that any Jew had occasion to complain or be disillusioned by the manner in which the Bible tells us God fulfilled the Abrahamic and Davidic promises.
Blessings!
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Well, from the amillenial perspective, the promises made to Israel can be considered as fulfilled - in the Church, that is. But even if that's the case - and I don't deny that it is - then what about the physical descendants of Israel?AlexRodriguez wrote:Would you care to give me an example (or more than one, if you can) of what promise(s) God has made to the nation of Israel, that cannot be considered as fulfilled from what we know from the coming of Messiah, as well as what we know from history?
Let me give you a perfect example from Isaiah 29:22-24:
Therefore [because of the promises to Israel] this is what the LORD - the One who redeemed Abraham - says concerning the family [descendants] of Jacob: Jacob will not now be ashamed [because his descendants have grown progressively more wicked with each passing generation], neither will his face now go pale [with shock, because they're destined for destruction on account of their wickedness]. But when he sees his children, the work of My hands, all around him, they will sanctify my name. They will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob and revere the God of Israel. Also, those who erred in spirit will come to understanding, and those who complained will learn doctrine."
If one reads this text literally, what God is promising is that even though the physical descendants of Jacob had grown so wicked that God was being forced to destroy them from off the face of the land of Israel and send them into captivity, there would come a time when they would repent and truly revere God. In the resurrection, Jacob would be surrounded by his righteous descendants. In other words, it was meant to be tremendously encouraging in the face of Israel's wickedness. Right?
From the amillenial perspective however, this is only talking about the descendants of Jacob who became Christians. The work was basically finished with the coming of Christ, in other words. But although I don't deny that that's certainly part of what this passage in Isaiah means, I can't bring myself to believe that it's the whole story.
Remember what I said before, about how small a percentage of Jews became Christians in the first century? Is this all that God means to save - just a small percentage - and then throw away the rest?
Also, the amillenial perspective says that it's not important to know who physical Israelites are right now, because we're all one in Christ. I would disagree, because I would want to know just how faithful God has been to His promise to Jacob. I would want to see whether God only saved a small percentage, or a truly innumerable multitude.
Has God forgotten His chosen people in favor of another chosen people, in other words? (Isa. 49:14-15) Isn't that precisely what Moses talked God out of (Num. 14:10-21)? God was going to destroy all of Israel because of their wickedness and make a more righteous nation out of Moses, who was himself an Israelite - a perfect parallel of how Israel and the Church are related in the amillenial perspective! - but Moses would have none of it.
To the Jews exclusively? No, not at all. For instance, Hosea 1:9-11 was quoted in Romans 9:24-26, applying a promise originally made to Israel to the Gentiles. But for what purpose? Because God is turning His back on one chosen people in favor of another chosen people? (That's how some people would interpret Acts 13:46. I find that interpretation to be detestable in the extreme.) No, not at all! It's so that the Gentiles can then turn around and participate in ministering to the Israelites so they can also repent and turn to God (Isa. 49:22-23; verse 6 this chapter was even quoted in Acts 13:47).AlexRodriguez wrote:Another question: do you have any reasons to believe that the prophecies made to God's people need to be fulfilled in Jews exclusively, apart from the Gentile believers?
Anyway, those are my thoughts...
Damon
Last edited by jaiotu on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: