![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/12\/BiblicalInterpretationDictionary.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Jonathan M. S. Pearce\u2019s<\/span> \u201cAbout\u201d page<\/a> (for A Tippling Philosopher<\/em>) states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d His words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Atheist anti-theist writer Jonathan M. S. Pearce wrote a post entitled,\u00a0\u201cThe Mistranslation of \u2018Virgin\u2019\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(12-7-16). I replied with\u00a0Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: \u201cMistranslation\u201d of \u201cVirgin\u201d? (Isaiah 7:14)<\/a>\u00a0(with Glenn Miller) (7-26-17). Jonathan then counter-replied with\u00a0<\/span>Rebutting Armstrong\u2019s Double Reference Prophecy Defence<\/a> (8-2-17). Presently I shall respond to the heart (i.e., central underlying hostile premise) of that article\u2019s critique. Jonathan\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I said the following:<\/span><\/p>\n It has been claimed that this prophecy, then, was a dual prophecy predicting two different outcomes. However, dual prophecies have no precedent\u2014there are simply no other examples of such a thing.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To which he countered:<\/span><\/p>\n To the contrary, dual application or dual fulfillment or \u201cdouble reference\u201d of prophecies is a fairly\u00a0common occurrence in biblical prophecy (particularly in messianic prophecies).\u00a0An\u00a0article on biblicalresearch.info website<\/a>\u00a0explains this and provides many examples.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n This whole enterprise is so desperately ad hoc and it is amazing to see the lengths apologists will go\u00a0to harmonise particular things.<\/span><\/p>\n Duly noted. Let\u2019s proceed, then, shall we?<\/span><\/p>\n Baptist theologian Augustus H. Strong wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n Certain prophecies apparently contain a fulness of meaning which is not exhausted by the event to which they\u00a0most obviously and literally refer. A prophecy which\u00a0had a partial fulfillment at a time not remote from its\u00a0utterance, may find it\u2019s chief fulfillment in an event\u00a0far distant. Since the principles of God\u2019s administration find ever recurring and enlarging illustration in\u00a0history, prophecies which have already had a partial\u00a0<\/span>fulfillment may have whole cycles of fulfillment yet before them. (Systematic Theology<\/em>, Vol. II; Philadelphia: Griffith\u00a0and Rowland Press, 1907, p. 138)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Charles Feinberg adds that the law of dual fulfillment:<\/span><\/p>\n . . . may assume anyone of several forms. Two\u00a0or more events of a like character may be described\u00a0by a common profile. Future events placed side by side in the prophecy, may have great gaps between\u00a0them in their fulfillment. (Premillennialism or Amillennialism<\/em>, Grand\u00a0Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1937, p. 38)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Isaiah, chapter 14<\/a> is an example of prophetic writing that has application to both the king of Babylon and to Satan (most obvious in 14:13-14). That\u2019s not about Jesus or even about the Me<\/span>ssiah (whoever he is or was). It has a dual application that any and every Jew could wholeheartedly accept.<\/span><\/p>\n Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. provides another non-Christological example:<\/span><\/p>\n From our perspective many of these prophecies have already been fulfilled, while others still await realization.\u00a0 . . . For example, Zephaniah\u2019s vision of the Lord\u2019s Day includes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (1:4-13), judgment on surrounding nations of his time (2:4-15), judgment more cosmic and universal in scope (1:2-3, 18), the restoration of God\u2019s people (3:11-20) . . . Zephaniah and his prophetic counterparts saw a unified picture of the future that, from our vantage point, tends to blur the chronological distinctions that eventually emerge with the progressive fulfillment of each element in their visions. (Interpreting the Minor Prophets<\/em><\/a>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1990,\u00a0p. 20<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Baker\u2019s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology<\/em><\/a> (edited by Walter A. Elwell,\u00a0Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1996<\/span><\/span><\/span>) presents a similar type of prophecy from the prophet Joel:<\/span><\/p>\n Joel understands the \u201cday of the Lord\u201d<\/span> (2:31<\/a>) to be not a single event but a theological concept with multiple fulfillments, or perhaps better, multiple manifestations. The locust plague, a terrible judgment of God on his people, was the day of the Lord, but an apocalyptic invasion yet to come (vv. 1-11, referring to a human, not locust, army) was still another manifestation of the day of the Lord. Even so, the day of the Lord was also salvation for his people, as seen in the restoration of the land (vv. 21-27), the pouring out of the Spirit (vv. 28-32), and the judgment on the nations<\/span> (3:1-21<\/a>). Each of these events is a separate manifestation of the day of the Lord and each can be called a \u201cfulfillment.\u201d<\/span> (\u201cType \/ Typology\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n H. Wayne House and J. Randall Price explain a similar or identical phenomenon under another name:<\/span><\/p>\n Prophetic telescoping describes the fact that the prophetic vision is often included in close juxtaposition to prophecies whose fulfillment is widely separated in time from portions of the prophecy.<\/span> (Charts of Bible Prophecy<\/em><\/a>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003<\/span>, p. 47<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a lengthy scholarly source strictly about biblical prophecy, it\u2019s noted in a section about \u201cprophetic telescoping\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n Biblical prophecy may leap from one prominent peak in predictive topography to another, without notice of the valley between, which may involve no inconsiderable lapse in chronology<\/span>. (Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy<\/span><\/span>:\u00a0<\/em><\/a>The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment<\/em><\/a>, J. Barton Payne,\u00a0Wipf and Stock Publishers,\u00a0Sep 30, 2020 [782 pages]<\/span><\/span><\/span>,<\/span> p. 137<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Again, similarly:<\/span><\/p>\n Prophecy has its own peculiar perspective. The element\u00a0of time is a rather negligible quantity in the prophets. While\u00a0designations of time are not altogether wanting, their number\u00a0is exceptionally small. The prophets compressed great events\u00a0into a brief space of time, brought momentous movements\u00a0close together in a temporal sense, and took them in at a single\u00a0glance. This is called \u201cthe prophetic perspective,\u201d or, as Delitzsch calls it, \u201cthe foreshortening of the prophet\u2019s horizon.\u201d They looked upon the future as the traveler does upon a mountain range in the distance. He fancies that one mountain-top rises up right behind the other, when in reality they are miles apart. (Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation<\/em><\/a>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>p. 150)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And again:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cProphetic perspective\u201d suggests that the prophets were little concerned about specificity in the timing of their predictions and could speak in the same breath of events near and far in chronology. (Randall E. Otto,<\/span> \u201cThe Prophets and Their Perspective,\u201d<\/a> The Catholic Biblical Quarterly<\/em>,\u00a0Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 2001), pp. 219-240; citation from p. 219)\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The great Baptist scholar Bernard Ramm concurs:<\/span><\/p>\n There is the possibility of multiple fulfilment<\/em>. There\u00a0is a difference between \u201cmultiple sense\u201d and \u201cmultiple fulfilment.\u201d\u00a0 Misunderstanding has arisen due to the failure\u00a0to distinguish double sense from double fulfilment. Beecher\u00a0speaks of generic prophec<\/em>y which he defines as \u201cone which regards an event as occurring in a series of parts separated by\u00a0intervals, and expresses itself in language that may apply\u00a0indifferently to the nearest part, or to the remoter parts, or\u00a0to the whole-in other words a prediction which, in applying\u00a0to the whole of a complex of event, also applies to some of\u00a0the parts.\u201d To be sure, Beecher affirms, if the Scriptures\u00a0had many meanings interpretation would be equivocal, but\u00a0manifold fulfilment of a generic prophecy preserves the one\u00a0sense of Scripture. [Cf. Willis Judson Beecher, The Prophets and the Promises<\/em>, 1905, p. 129 ff.]\u00a0Both promises and threats work themselves out over a period of time and therefore may pass\u00a0through several fulfilments. Or one may view the same event\u00a0from more than one perspective. The destruction of Jerusalem is prophesied by our Lord and through it we have a\u00a0perspective through which to envision the end of the world.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Johnson has an extended discussion of double reference<\/em>.\u00a0Double reference is characteristic of all great literature, and\u00a0the Bible being great literature contains it. (Protestant Biblical Interpretation<\/em><\/a>, 3rd revised edition,\u00a0Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>pp. 252-253)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In<\/span> St. Thomas\u00a0Aquinas\u2019s\u00a0preface<\/a> to his commentary on the Psalms, he writes:<\/span><\/p>\n Prophecies however sometimes are said of things which were of the time then, but are not principally said of those things, but insofar as they are a figure of future things; and therefore the Holy Spirit ordained that when such things were said, we should infer things that excede the condition of the event, so that our attention might be raised to that which is prefigured.<\/span><\/p>\n Just as in Daniel many things are said of Antioch as a prefigurement of the Antichrist, so there some things are said which were not fulfilled in Antioch, but will be fulfilled in the Antichrist; . . . [see Daniel 9:24-27<\/a>; see more information on\u00a0Antiochus IV Epiphanes<\/a> (c. 215 BC \u2013 154) and the \u201cabomination of desolation\u201d<\/a> that Daniel referred to in Daniel 9:27]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lastly, the Jewish Qumran community had an outlook on dual prophetic fulfillment very much like the early Church and subsequent Christian hermeneutics:<\/span><\/p>\n In the early church and at Qumran . . ., the Prophets and other prophetic literature . . . were read through two perspectives: (1) as if it were apocalyptic literature . . . \u2014 that is, as if it were all written in prediction of the last days whose true meaning would be disclosed in the final events of the end time . . .; and (2) as if the life, history, and destiny of the two respective communities were the objects of the prophetic predictions and descriptions. Such a reading presupposed (1) that the biblical material or prophecies contain hidden or secondary meanings and frames of reference . . . that transcend the simple and common-sense reading, and (2) that this secondary dimension of the text had become evident through its subsequent fulfillment or manifestation. NT and Qumran authors did not discuss whether the original hearers\/readers understood this secondary or true referent. (Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation<\/em><\/a>, vol. 2: K-Z<\/em>, John H. Hayes, general editor, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999, \u201cProphecy and Prophets, Hebrew Bible,\u201d p. 311).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nI advise you to read that linked article. It is thoroughly underwhelming and only presents examples of Christ being the double reference, which was exactly the point.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI freely grant that this article was not the best<\/em> I could find, and it certainly is not the sum<\/em> of what can be found in support of my contentions. I was just trying to find a fast link. In debates, we don\u2019t always spend hours and hours of time (out of lack of same or lack of specific desire \/ priorities, etc.) on any one given point. But presently I will argue this point far more strenuously, with many backing materials.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDouble prophecies only appear to get applied to Jesus, because that is all Christians\u00a0can\u00a0<\/em>do. For the non-Christian (i.e. Jew), the Messiah is yet to appear and these prophecies only apply to the people in the OT itself to which they obviously\u00a0do apply prima facie. The Christian has to make a case for these prophecies to apply to the original protagonist (e.g. King Ahaz)\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em>Jesus. This is a tough sell, and I don\u2019t buy it. It looks ad hoc because it almost certainly is. And that linked article does the square root of naff all to convince me otherwise.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWe shall see if there is no such thing as a dual application even within an Old Testament framework only. If there is (as I believe I shall prove), then it is thinkable and possible for such a prophecy to be applied to Jesus, as a messianic prophecy. There are certainly messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. No one denies that. Jews, of course, \u2014 as Jonathan notes \u2014 deny that they apply to Jesus<\/em>, whom we claim was the Messiah. They think they will apply to the Messiah yet to come.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPoint being, that Jesus is the only application of double reference prophecies. There are never double reference prophecies as far as I know\u00a0within<\/em>\u00a0the OT.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThen he is about to be schooled on that point, for these surely do<\/em> exist, as I will document.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n. . .\u00a0you really have to stretch things to allow for a double reference to signify someone who comes almost a thousand years later . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n[T]he prophecy is being completely misappropriated in being later assigned to Jesus. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n[I]f Armstrong and others want to massage and apply these verses to fit the Jesus narrative, then it all needs to fit, not just the verses in the paragraph that they\u00a0can\u00a0<\/em>(at a stretch) apply, with all others being ignored.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWell, no, it doesn\u2019t. Some of it can apply to the more-or-less present and other portions to the future and a different specific referent.<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n