Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment

Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double FulfillmentI 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

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

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

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

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: 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

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.

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

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

Thank you for the recap. No need to pause for digestion as I already know this. The interesting bits are at the end anyway. =)Please continue.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

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

Thank you for your interpretation Peg. It is very enlightening to see the various ways in which different people plug in different historical events into Daniel 11.I think the point that Paulk is eventually going to get to after the disagreement about Seleucis IV is that there is a better reason to think that the verses following 11:20 are referring to Antiochus IV.Antiochus established a covenant with the Jews which he broke half way through when he desecrated the temple. You even seem to recognize this historical fact later but deny that it is described in Daniel 11 even though it is right there plain as day. There is also much foreshadowing of Antiochus earlier in Daniel regarding the beast with the 10 horns. A little horn appears, knocks down 3 others, and takes control. This describes the situation with Antiochus exactly regarding the succession of 10 kings of Syria and Antiochus IV basically had to eliminate 3 rivals to the throne to take over.All this discussion is fascinating and I am interested to see where it goes but I don't loose the OP in this so I would ask that you please reply to my next statement.Basically the position you are taking is more akin to #1 of the 3 options I gave earlier with a small caveat. You are in fact robbing Daniel of what would otherwise be a very cohesive fulfillment infered by not just chapter 11 but previous chapters. You don't consider double fulfillment but rather you plug in progressive histories as fulfillment instead. You also abandon the very connected sequence of history that Daniel is describing in favor of one with a number of gaps which it seems is not the most straight forward reading of the scripture. This is ESPECIALLY given the fact that we have in history a more than viable alternative that does not break the continuity.I am not, in theory, claiming that you are wrong. I would just like for you to justify why you are choosing this method of interpretation considering the features you have to abandon in order to get there. My guess is that you are doing this because of a percieved need for inerrancy but I only mention that because I would like to start off with a hypothesis and not to prejudge any motives. I REALLY TRULY want to tease out if there are scholarly, logical, or other motives for doing these gymnastics with prophecy because I DO NOT want to just handwave your arguments away as purly theological.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

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

With respect Peg, I said a lot more in my reply to you than just the issue of continuity. I disagree with you that there is evidence for gaps but that is not the main point I was making. The main reason to think that there is continuity is also that the verses after 20 describe the actions that Antiochus IV took that we have independed history for which include making the 7 year covenant, breaking it halfway through, desecrating the temple, the foreshadowing with the vision of the beast with 10 horns, etc. I also specifically asked you for your opinion concerning the reason for your choices of interpretation.As much as I do rather enjoy using this example in Daniel as a framework for the OP, I really hope to avoid this thread JUST becoming an argument about what is a valid interpretation of Daniel. I may disagree with your interpretation but I am vastly more interested in any REASON you have for that interpretation that goes beyond theological needs.Jesus mentioning Daniel is a good clue but he could very well have just been using it as a reference since what happened in 70AD was not at all like what Daniel describes. In 70AD the temple was destroyed. Daniel describes the temple being desecrated yet staying intact which is exactly what happened during Antiochus' time.If you believe that Jesus MUST be meaning that Daniel is unfulfilled then again I'll ask you WHY you believe that over the simpler explanation. Certainly I realize that I am fighting against a tendency to defend your particular belief on this issue, but as I am forming my own beliefs I need more than just the apologetic reasoning.Please don't dismiss my criticism, I am trying to tease out something that is very important to me.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

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

Sorry Buz,I totally meant to reply to you and just plumb forgot. First of all, if Daniel as supposed to be hidden until the end times then the end times must have stared at least around 150BC because we know that the Jews at the time had multiple (and sometimes different) copies of Daniel.Second, it is important to point out that John the Revelator wrote with full knowledge of the text of Daniel so I fail to see anything amazing about him using similar iconography.The IMPORTANT point though is that you are doing something similar to Peg which if you read back to my post where I listed 3 methods of interpretation, you are also seemingly choosing #1. I started this thread to talk about double prophecy because that is now the interpretation of Daniel was presented to me by other Christians but so far it seems like you and Peg are simply denying that Daniel has a cohesive Maccabean period fulfillment at all. (maybe it is a JW thing?) Which is fine by the way. Please don't take me as bashing that, I welcome all opinions.What I am more interested in understanding is WHY you interpret this way. I am less interested in apologetics as I am in reasoning.In my mind, you are sacrificing what would otherwise be an amazing display of prophecy fulfilled (Daniel predicting the persecution under Antiochus), to push prophecy back in order to attain some specific theological end which may or may not extend to all Christianity or even all Bible interpretation.Also, I don't want to make Revelation off limits because if it helps as part of the OP I want to talk about it but I am less interested in validating end times prophecy in and of itself. Again I am primarily interested in this thread to talk about the reasoning behind prophetic interpretation.

---

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

As much as I want to reply to your interpretation point by point, Peg I feel like when I do that you ignore the main point of my reply even when I point it out explicitly.I want to establish agreement on one thing about your interpretation of Daniel. By you splitting it up and pushing things out from the Maccabean period you are in fact trading a cohesive existing fulfillment for, (what I am guessing is) your personal theological reasons.Other Christians that have spoken to ACCEPT the fulfillment of Daniel in the Maccabean period but claim that the last bit about the end times is yet to come and that there will be another fulfillment in the future because of Revelations (similar to Buz's reasoning). That is why I started this thread talking about double fulfillment.

---

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