|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment
I recently became interested in studying the Book of Daniel. I have read a lot about the controversies surrounding the origins of Daniel but what I am really interested in is this notion of prophetic double (or multi) fulfillment. The reason I am sticking with Daniel is this. Most people agree that Daniel was fulfilled (or written contemporaneously) with the warring between Antiochus and Ptolemy in the 2nd century B.C. Even if you believe that Daniel was written earlier, Daniel 12 suggests that nobody should know about it until it happens anyway. The fact that we do and the very accurate description of Palestine as a battlefront between the Antiochus and Ptolemy seems to make it pretty clear that Daniel 11 is a description of Antiochus as the "despicable person" and the one who desecrates the temple, etc. But if you look at people who are deep into end-times thinking and writing right now they are basically saying that the events from Daniel 11 are going to happen again followed by the first fulfillment of Daniel 12. My question is, what is the Biblical support for this theology of double fulfillment? Even if you take for granted that Daniel 12 is yet to come and was not a failed prophecy, what Biblical support is there for another fulfillment of 11? You could broaden this topic to any other prophecy that is claimed to either BE a double fulfillment or that WILL HAVE a double fulfillment although I would like to focus on Daniel as a base example and would like to bring in the PRIMARY Biblical support for why double fulfillment is even valid theology. I'll tell you right now that what I am NOT looking for is an argument that double fulfillment must be true in order to make the Bible accurate. I am looking for direct theological, historical, and Biblical evidence that we SHOULD consider double fulfillment as a valid method for interpreting prophecy in its own right. I would love input from Christians as well as non-Christian Bible experts such as Brian if he is around. Bible Accuracy Forum please. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Any Interest in this topic at all?
No offense taken if there is not, I just don't want to hold my breath. =) If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I don't have the resources or knowledge that Brian has, but don't see that the prophecy writers give the impression that their prophecies hold a double meaning. The NT writer seem to be applying a form of Remez to interpret the OT.
Hints, Allegories, and Mysteries: The New Testament Quotes the Old (2) Remez (hint)wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware. Kyle Williams has presented the book of Matthew as satire. The Satire According to Matthew When it comes to thumbing his nose at the reader, Matthew's phony fulfillments are his forte. It is generally conceded that Matthew addressed his gospel to a Jewish audience. The Jews, being familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, would have recognized Matthew's phony fulfillments as signals that the book should not be taken seriously. What if the humor got lost on the Gentiles and double fulfillment was born.
Daniel and the New TestamentThis article brings out several references to Daniel made in the NT, although some of his references from Matthew to Daniel are rather vague. Matthew (24:15) is the only one who refers back to the Book of Daniel (9:27)concerning the abomination that causes desolation. Mark (13:14) and Luke (21:20) don't. Luke doesn't even say abomination.
Luke 21:20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Using the same words doesn't mean they are referring back to Daniel. I think the Book of Matthew sparked the double fulfillment issue, whether seriously or in jest. I don't see that the OT writers lead one to that conclusion. If you notice the definition of Remez gives the implication that a writer can be clueless to an underlying meaning from God. I don't see that the OT writers presented that idea. Edited by purpledawn, : Fix link "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
If I understand what you are saying it essentially is still boiling down to an argument that double prophecy has to be true in order to make the Bible accurate.
If you read Daniel 11 and 12 in particular, there is nothing there to suggest that the events at the end there would be delayed, by oh lets say 2000 years, but I am not certain that other traditions don't exist that would push for a double fulfillment interpretation. Hence my asking. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That wasn't my intention. I agree that in the text of Daniel the writer does not present the idea that the fulfillment events would take place 2000 or more years later. I don't think any of the prophecies did. They were written for their audience. I think the double fulfillment idea was generated through looking for hidden meanings after the exile in texts for hope since the prophecy well had run dry for many years before Christ. That may be reflected in the humor of the Matthew writer. Supposedly there were many who claimed to be the messiah and they probably used the scripture to try and prove they were. Looking for hidden meanings is just another way of reading religious text. It doesn't really deal with accuracy. Although as a general rule any extended meaning supposedly should not contradict the simple or direct meaning. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I fear that that explanation might stuffer from the same properties that I am trying to avoid though in that there is no evidence to support the validity of such interpretations.
Was such a thing done in the past with older prophecies? Is there support somewhere in the Bible or elsewhere to suggest that it is okay theologically to do such a thing? If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
While I don't know as much as Brian I have discussed some of these issues and had a good look at them before.
quote: Mark's reference is pretty clear - and the authorial aside "let the reader understand" is a strong hint, Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse is pretty heavily rewritten - probably with knowledge of the events of 70 AD - which don't agree that well with the version found in Mark and Matthew. Luke would know, for instance, that there was nothing corresponding to Daniel's "Abomination". I suppose that it is possible that Matthew (also written after 70 AD, according to mainstream estimates) left the Olivet Discourse largely unchanged because it didn't fit events that well. And it is possible (but not that likely) that Mark was copied from Matthew. But I don't think that you have a very strong case for this example (unlike those in Matthew's Nativity - which could easily be original to Matthew's gospel). Having said that I do feel that "Double fulfilment" is something of an ad hoc excuse. In my experience the second "fulfilment" relies on picking out bits and pieces of the prophecy, and so has a very dubious claim to be called any sort of "fulfilment".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
As a seperate issue, do you know of good place to get detailed information about when books were written. Internet searches on things like this are hard because you often get the theologically biased interpretations.
I would love to see a wiki style site with each book, canoncal, apocrophal, deuterocanoncal, etc listed with information about its origins and evidence for dating etc. As for the topic:
Having said that I do feel that "Double fulfilment" is something of an ad hoc excuse. In my experience the second "fulfilment" relies on picking out bits and pieces of the prophecy, and so has a very dubious claim to be called any sort of "fulfilment". The primary place I hear about "double fulfilment" is issues regarding the end times. Daniel describing Antiochus and then some as of yet unfulfilled anti-christ. John the Revelator describing Nero and some as of yet unfulfilled anti-christ. I don't know enough Bible to know if there are any self-contained double fulfillments in the bible of earlier prophecies but that is certainly something I could imagine someone posting about. Aren't there some prophecies concerning Jesus that were also fulfilled by earlier Biblical persona? The criticism there may be that they weren't really about Jesus to begin with but it would be a good starting place for discussing if there is biblical support for this method of interpretation of prophecy. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Valid as in they are allowed to do it, or valid as in the interpretation matches the simple reading? These types of interpretations aren't meant to match the simple reading. Religions can interpret their religious writings any way they want. When people stop buying into it they will disappear. quote:From what I can tell this type of interpretation came about after the exile when the rabbinic style emerged. Before that the manuscripts were still being written. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I don't see that the author of Mark is insinuating that this is a second fulfillment of Daniel, but more of a similar event. Times just as bad as described in Daniel. We assume it refers to Daniel or have been told it does; but I don't see it in the text. quote:Strong case for what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I would say that the author of Mark regarded it as a fulfilment of Daniel - I can see no indication that he felt it to be merely "similar" events. Whether the author saw it as a second fulfilment requires determining his opinion of whether the prophecy had already been fulfilled or not - which we cannot even do for Matthew. We must remember that the End did NOT come according to Daniel's "predictions" so it is distinctly possible that the authors reinterpreted Daniel as referring to later events.
quote: The idea that the use of Daniel in Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse is satire. Taken at face value it seems to be a simple replacement for the authorial aside, conveying the information that the author of Mark intended that the reader should discover.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Jazzns
Jassns writes: My question is, what is the Biblical support for this theology of double fulfillment? There certainly is biblical support double, greater fulfillments of prophecies. Many prophecies find a typical fulfillment in the nation of Israel and then find a complete fulfillment later on. In other words, the typical fulfillment itself in turn becomes a prophecy pointing forward to a still greater event. One example is the prophecy at Exodus 23:31 which foretold the boundaries of the Promised Land that Isreal would come to possess. This prophecy had its typical fulfillment in David’s day when David expanded the kingdom to the divinely set boundaries between 1077 B.C. and 1037 B.C. But it will have a greater fulfillment when Christ Jesus enforces his dominion to the very ends of the earth by means of the Kingdom of God. At that time the boundaries of the promised land will encompass the whole earth.
Jazzns writes: what Biblical support is there for another fulfillment of 11 which part of daniel 11 are you refering to? Its a fairly long chapter and its not all refering to 1 specific prophecy but actually contains several. It is an overview of the struggles between world powers right thru the ages until the 'last days' or 'our day'.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:1 Maccabees also mentions the abomination of desolation and describes what happened. The author of Mark could also be referring to that incident. Notice they fled to the mountains. The Book of Daniel is grouped with the writings in the Jewish Bible, not the prophets.
1 Maccabees 1
[54] Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side; 1 Maccabees 2 [27] And Mattathias cried throughout the city with a loud voice, saying, Whosoever is zealous of the law, and maintaineth the covenant, let him follow me. [28] So he and his sons fled into the mountains, and left all that ever they had in the city. [29] Then many that sought after justice and judgment went down into the wilderness, to dwell there: Early Jewish Writings: Daniel W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696) Early Jewish Writings: 1 Maccabees David A. deSilva writes: "The book must have been written after the accession of John Hyrcanus in 134 B.C.E., since this event is the last related in the narrative. The author speaks of the Romans highly and emphasizes the Jews' friendly relations with Rome and Rome's faithfulnes as allies, necessitating a date of composition prior to 63 B.C.E. (Oesterley 1913: 60; Goldstein 1976: 63; Fischer 1992: 441; Bartlett 1998: 34). The narration of the achievements and character of the Romans in 8:1-16 is an encomium, contrasting sharply with later reflection on Roman conquest and rule as arrogance, insolence, and an affront against God. Pompey's entry into the holy places in 63 B.C.E. would have marred the author's unqualified appreciation of the Romans (as a comparison with the response of Psalms of Solomon 2; 8; 17 to that event might show). . . . The conclusion to the whole (16:23-24), while not necessitating a date after Hyrcanus's death, is certainly more naturally taken that way, given the parallels in the books of Samuel and Kings, on which the author is intentionally drawing (Oesterley 1913: 60; Pfeiffer 1949: 301; Goldstein 1976: 63; Bartlett 1998: 33). . . . It seems preferable, therefore, to consider 1 Maccabees as having originated sometime after John Hyrcanus's death in 104 B.C.E. and before Roman intervention in the dispute between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II in 63 B.C.E." (Introducing the Apocrypha, p. 248) That one reference is not what makes the book of Matthew a satirical writing. Daniel wasn't necessarily canonical at the time of Mark's writing. Was the writer of Mark alluding to Daniel or the actual Maccabean event which would remind the people of what did happen when they were overrun before?
In the Septuagint, the Torah and Nevi'im are established as canonical, but, the Ketuvim appear not to have been definitively canonized yet (some editions of the Septuagint include, for instance I—IV Maccabees or the 151st Psalm, while others do not include them, also there are the Septuagint additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel and 1 Esdras). As I said: I think the Book of Matthew sparked the double fulfillment issue, whether seriously or in jest. I could be wrong. Just my thoughts. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Mark also refers to "The Son of Man" which is taken to be a reference to Daniel. (And I would think that Matthew would be more likely to refer to merely "similar" events than Mark).
quote: Which does not nean that it was not viewed as predicting the future by Jews. Josephus certainly seemed to think so, relating a story - almost certainly ahistorical - about Alexander reading Daniel.
quote: I never said otherwise. All I said was that the case for that reference being satirical was weak.
quote: Josephus was active at that time, and IIRC probably did include Daniel as canonical. And as your source states 1 Maccabees is no more likely to be considered canonical itself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024