Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment

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).

---

Why? Ezekiel is called son of man many times.The point is that Mark isn't necessarily referencing Daniel. It could be Daniel or Maccabees. Luke backs away from it, since that book was probably written after the destruction and he knew the events foretold in Mark 13 hadn't happened.

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.

---

Josephus said there were 22 books, but Daniel wasn't mentioned by name. I agree the Maccabees also weren't canonical, but it sounds like they both may have been included in the Septuagint, even though they weren't canonical.Double fulfillment may have been born through apologetics also.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hi Jazzns. Greetings to you and old pro and con friends at EvC. Having been studiously into the Biblical prophecies for the past 60 plus years, since a youth and presently being an active member of a Christian prophecy board, perhaps I may be able to contribute some substantive input to the topic.What I've learned about fulfilled prophecy is that completion of a given prophecy such as the 10 horned beast of Daniel progress to complete fulfillment. Progressive stages of fulfillment are misconstrued by some as either contemporaneous or the first of a double fulfillment.Daniel 7 which depicts a 10 horned beast as 10 kings presiding over a world class empire. Evidence that this did not have a contemporaneous fulfillment is as follows:1. We read in Daniel 12:4 that Daniel is told to "shut up the words and seal up book, even to the time of the end; many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall increase." (speaking of the end times when complete fulfillment is to be expected.)2. Now go to the last book of the Bible which covers the end time prophecies. Check out Revelation 13 and Rev. 17. Daniel 7, Rev 13 and Rev 17 are the three chapters, one in the OT and the other two in the NT which specifically deal with a global class ten horned kingdom of ten kings depicted as a beast kingdom.3. Open your notepad and type in all of the data given by the prophet Daniel in chapter 7. Then type in all of the data given in both chapters, Rev 13 and 17 relative to the 10 horned beast.4. You will discover the following:
a. Both OT and NT prophecies state that this beast will make war with and/or wear out the saints of God.
b. Both OT and NT propecies depict this beast kingdom as world class, having authority and power globally.
c. The books in which both OT and NT prophecies are covered depict an end time messianic kingdom of God on earth relative to Israel.
d. All corroborating prophets as well as Jesus/messiah prophesy a restored nation of Israel to be in place for the time of fulfillment.There are other corroborating scriptures and historical events which could be cited to support end time fulfillment of Daniel's remarkable prophecy.Another example of progressive fulfillment is the Abrahamic Covenant prophecy in the book of Genesis which prophesies that Abraham's decendents will eventually become a messianic kingdom in the land of Caanan which God was to give to him and his seed.Needless to remind all that numerous times as the fulfillment awaited fulfillment, it appeard that the nation of Israel was finished forever. Lo and behold, after all of the ins and outs of the land, the last one ongoing for over 19 centuries, this scattered people called Jews miraculously end up smack dad back where God promised Abraham they would end up.Was each return of the Jews one of a double, tripple or quadrubble fulfillment? Of course not. These were all progressive stages of the ultimate fulfillment which is about to emerge upon the planet, as the nations are drawn to battle (Armageddon) into the region [i]just as so many of the prophets declared so many centuries ago. Praise Jehovah, god of the Bible, who's declarations all eventually come to fulfillment in his own time. ABE: Mmmm, I just noticed that this message, the first since my [i]sabatical[i] is my 6,666th since becoming a member, having been active for about 6 years. There's something escatological about that number six, which Biblcally is the number of man, but never worry. Antichrist has only three sixes. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix Title and indicate ABE

ezekiel is called son of man becasue he prefigured Jesus christ because Ezekiel served as both prophet and priest in isreal. Matthew in chpt 24:15 said the disgusting thing that causes desolation is the one that was spoken of through Daniel the prophet.
This is clear evidence that they were referencing the book of Daniel seeing he mentions Daniel as the one it was spoken through.Also, the apostles were using the greek septuagint in many of their quotes as is seen by the fact that they not only write their gospels in greek, but the quotes they use came directly from the Greek Septuagint Version...you can compare them and you'll see the phrases are identicle.Josephus does cite 22 books in all and he certainly didnt including any of the maccabees books in that list. Its pretty clear that the maccabee books werent included in the septuagint because as your link mentions

quote:

---

the Hebrew OT was complete and no more canonical writings were composed after the reign of Artaxerxes (464-424 B.C.): (Josephus, Against Apion I. 8.).

---

Maccabees was written around the 2nd century bce...that puts them much later then the period josephus mentions. It also proves that Daniel was indeed written well before the time critics claim.Remember that Daniels book tells the story of Belshazzar...other historians in the first century bce did not know about him, nor did anyone until recent times, so for Daniel to have written about him means that Daniels book was written at the time of Belshazzars ruling. This is 500BCE. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Thank you all for your replies. I plan on responding soon but I am currently having a flareup of tendinitis in my wrists. Hopefully it will calm down by monday.I just wanted to make a quick point to drive the discussion. There was semi-recently a thread all about the dating of Daniel and I realize that it is a controversial topic. If it helps in the ultimate discussion of the topic I certainly would be willing to get into that but I tried to structure the OP with the consideration that the origins may not necessarily matter since it is only a minority of Christians (it seems) that DON'T believe that Daniel was fully or partially fulfilled by the actions of Antioch IV.So unless it helps the discussion, lets defer the dating of Daniel.I think overall the replies so far still may be missing what I want which is Biblical reference or example in history of double fulfillment.

Daniel chpt 11 probably isnt an example of double fulfillments for the reason that is stated in msg 13... it is a prophecy about the various ongoing struggles between world powers.for instance, it speaks about Alexandert the great and how his kingdom would be divided between 4 other kings...once this happened, the prophecy was fulfilled. When alexander died, his kingdome was divided between his 4 generals, they each taking a part of it.Alexander isnt coming back, the prophecy is fulfilled.the kings of the north and kings of the south are ever changing until the final ruling king or world power comes to his destruction at the hands of the Messianic kingdom spoken of in Dan 12.

Perhaps the reason is that there are none as per the reasons I have itemized. The progression of complete fulfillment is being miss-construed by some as alleged double fullments when in fact ultimate fulfillment was God's purpose for the prophecy in the first place.It would make no sense for complete fulfillment void of progressive events leading up to ultimate end time fulfillment relative to the prophecies of any of the end time prophets.Why do you think Daniel was inspired to announce the sealing up of his prophecy until the end times in which ultimate fulfillment would occur? Why do you think John the Revelator, centuries later after the birth of Jesus/messiah essentially unsealed the prophecy and elaborated on the details of ultimate fulfillment in chapters 13 and 17 relative to Daniel's 10 horned beast?As with all Biblical prophecy, corroborative data from all relative prophecies must be considered in determination of when fulfillment is to be expected.Why do you think the phenomenon is being observed of Israel (all the while surrounded by the enemy)being restored as Jesus and the OT prophets declared, corroborated by the simultaneous movement of the armies of the world into the region as prophesied by Zacheriah, Zephaniah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and others at a time when a new world global order/empire emerges indicative of ultimate fulfillment? There is no double fulfillment nor should anyone expect any when in fact, the prophecy was to be sealed until the appointed end time to be determined by God who inspired the prophets.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

Why? Ezekiel is called son of man many times.

---

Because the Son of Man in Mark appears to be a more-than-human figure.

quote:

---

The point is that Mark isn't necessarily referencing Daniel. It could be Daniel or Maccabees. Luke backs away from it, since that book was probably written after the destruction and he knew the events foretold in Mark 13 hadn't happened.

---

Daniel still seems more likely.

quote:

---

Josephus said there were 22 books, but Daniel wasn't mentioned by name.

---

As we know, Josephus (wrongly) believed that Daniel was written at the time the story is set. Thus Daniel could certainly fall into the canonical group - and 1 Maccabees could not. Also if you read your own source it proposes that Ruth is counted as part of Judges and Lamentations as part of Jeremiah to explain the count of 22.

quote:

---

Because the Son of Man in Mark appears to be a more-than-human figure.

---

Considering that that author of Mark was referring to Jesus throughout the book as the son of man, he would have been referring to Jesus.The verse in Daniel says "one like a son of man". The interpretation of the dream explained further in chapter 7 of Daniel doesn't follow through with the idea of one ethereal person. Of course that doesn't mean, later interpretations looking for deeper meanings couldn't make a different argument.My point is that what was written by Mark, Matthew, and Luke doesn't necessarily imply the writer sees this as a second fulfillment of Daniel. It could just as easily be a reference that the coming event will be just as bad as described in the Maccabees.

quote:

---

As we know, Josephus (wrongly) believed that Daniel was written at the time the story is set. Thus Daniel could certainly fall into the canonical group - and 1 Maccabees could not. Also if you read your own source it proposes that Ruth is counted as part of Judges and Lamentations as part of Jeremiah to explain the count of 22.

---

Does Josephus actually list the 22 books? I didn't see a list. If he doesn't list them, we don't that Daniel was or wasn't part of it.

quote:

---

Considering that that author of Mark was referring to Jesus throughout the book as the son of man, he would have been referring to Jesus.

---

It would be more accurate to say that the author of Mark has Jesus referring to himself as the "Son of Man".

quote:

---

The verse in Daniel says "one like a son of man".

---

Exactly. An entity that looks like a human - but presumably is not.

quote:

---

My point is that what was written by Mark, Matthew, and Luke doesn't necessarily imply the writer sees this as a second fulfillment of Daniel. It could just as easily be a reference that the coming event will be just as bad as described in the Maccabees.

---

As I have already said the evidence supports the idea that the authors of Mark and Matthew saw it as A fulfillment of Daniel. First or second is impossible to tell.
I don't see much of a link to Maccabees (which is linked to Daniel anyway).

quote:

---

Does Josephus actually list the 22 books? I didn't see a list. If he doesn't list them, we don't that Daniel was or wasn't part of it.

---

No, we can't know for sure. However, since Josephus took Daniel at face value, it seems very likely that it was counted as one of the 22.

quote:

---

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.

---

Hopefully hermeneutical method is close enough to "theological, historical, and Biblical evidence?"Most Christian hermeneutics texts mention the concept of "multiple fulfillment" of prophecy, and see this as valid. E.g. Ramm's text is a standard, widely-used hermeneutics text. "Johnson" is The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old.

This is getting more toward what I was looking for: What reason do you have to expand beyond the initial fulfillment? That is really what I am asking about.If God promises or a prophet divines that X will happen in the future, and X does happen, why is it not just simply fulfilled and done with?I would like to expand on your comment about Daniel in a seperate post so please be on the look out for that. The reason I would like to comment on it seperatly is I don't want it to distract from this main reply which is very directly related to what I want to discuss. I fear that the points I will raise about Daniel will expand into a debate about its particular origins/meaning which, while interesting, may distract from the main questions I have about double fulfillment.The reason I even brought up Daniel is because it is what got me thinking about this and there is some backstory which I will explain.

---

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

This is great stuff! Now go one step up from this, a little more abstract. How do we know to interpret a particular prophecy as "ultimate" versus perhaps a more straight forward reading of X was prophesised and X happened (end of story, pat on back to the prophets, God's power demonstrated, QED)?I think there may be a little bit of confusion regarding what I am asking which may be entirely my fault, but does the above make it more clear?

---

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

Thanks for expanding my vocabularly a little bit. Yea hermeneutics would fit, and I may need to learn more about it but a quick google make it seem that this is just another technique to rescue the theology of inerrancy. For the record, I am not a Biblical inerrantist (is that a word?). Please let me know if I am wrong.Regarding the difference between double reference versus double fulfillment. It seems to be to be pretty arbitrary what you could assign to each depending on the circumstances. Who would be the arbiter?

---

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

quote:

---

Thanks for expanding my vocabularly a little bit. Yea hermeneutics would fit, and I may need to learn more about it but a quick google make it seem that this is just another technique to rescue the theology of inerrancy. For the record, I am not a Biblical inerrantist (is that a word?). Please let me know if I am wrong.

---

"Hermeneutics" is simply one's methodology of interpretation. Everyone has a hermeneutic, whether they realize it or not, whether they are an inerrantist or not.

quote:

---

Regarding the difference between double reference versus double fulfillment. It seems to be to be pretty arbitrary what you could assign to each depending on the circumstances. Who would be the arbiter?

---

I believe "double reference" and "double fulfillment" are essentially the same thing. It implies that the original prophecy was looking forward to two future fulfillments, and that the same interpretive methodology will see both of them. I believe Ramm was trying to distinguish this from "double sense", which implies two different ways of interpreting the passage (general vs specific, or literal vs figurative).

This is in reply mainly to Peg but partially also to Buz So I think that generalizing Daniel 11 to an "overview of the struggles between world powers" or that "kings of the north and kings of the south are ever changing" really does short change Daniel on what otherwise would be a pretty darn amazing display of prophecy. (lets assume an early dating of Daniel)I am not personally aware of all the variety of interpretations of Daniel 11-12 but at the very least 11 is describing in quite exquisite detail the comings and goings of the wars between the Selucids and Ptolomys during the 2nd centry BC. In fact, the King of the North who makes a covenant for 7 years but breaks it halfway though only to descreate the temple exactly describes Antiochus Epiphanes and independent accounts of what he was doing to Helenize the Jews at the time.The only problem is that things didn't quite end for Antiochus the way Daniel describes them. God did not come to bring about the end days and smite Antiochus. The flu got Antiochus before he could get that last bit of conquest. So 1% of the prophecy didn't quite end the way it should have according to Daniel so we have a couple of ways to deal with it.1. Deny that Daniel is talking about the 2nd centry BC or Antiochus at all. I feel that this has the problem that I mentioned above which is to absolutly deny to Daniel what would otherwise be an amazing prophecy. It is also the least scholoarly of interpretations and is in fact rejecting potentially fulfillment only because of a percieved need for inerrancy.2. Accept that Daniel is describing Antiochus and events but also accept that Daniel was wrong about the last bit. This to me is the simplist explanation but is understandabily unappealing theologically to some people.3. (This is what brought me to the OP), accept that Daniel's prophecy has a double or multi fulfillment and that he is BOTH describing Antiochus and some later figure that will match with the last part of Daniel 11. It seems that many Christians like this particular interpretation and see the figure that Antiochus also fulfills as the Anti-Christ. That there will be another covenant with this figure, that he will again break it afte 3.5 years, another desecration of the temple, etc. But this time things in the last bit of Daniel will actually happen with the institution of God's reign and the resurrection, etc.My question and the PURPOSE of the thread was to examine (in general) the reasoning behind #3. At first glance it seems as though the only reason you would even need double fulfillment is if you have a theological need for Daniel to be both accurate AND prophetic.If you accept #1, you don't need double fulfillment at all. Daniel 11 just plain old hasn't happened yet but you rob him of any fulfillment. Likewaise for #2 you don't need it because Daniel 11 has already happend and you just ditch inerrancy. My feeling is that if you believe in #3, there needs to be some reasoning of why you are allowed to go down that path. To me it seems as though there are some theological inventions here that are unnecessary but I wanted to start the topic to see if I just wan't thinking about it hard enough or that there was some support elsewhere in the bible for thinking this way.Does that make sense?

---

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