Do preterist/futurist debates occur sometimes due to "double fulfillment prophecies"?

[kendemyer]

I am a new student of eschatology. A recent debate with member of TWEB helped spark my interest in this matter before I initially planned to.

I have noticed that preterist and futurist contest Mathew 24. I have not set any firm opinion regarding the totality of my beliefs regarding this chapter of Scripture.

I recall reading about "double fullfilling prophecies" and I asked myself could this be one of the reasons why preterist and futurist debate Mathew 24.

Let me give you some examples of material I have some questions about and the question I have regarding the the whole issue of "double fulfilling" prophecy.

I will give some internet web citations:

We must realize, however, that not all prophecies attributed by Christian scholars as applying to Christ are so clearly stated. They are considered to apply to Christ by the rule of “double fulfillment,” which assumes that a prophecy has a dual application—one for the present and one for the distant future. An example would be Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Kept in its original context, the initial application of this prophecy would apply to Isaiah’s son born of his wife, the prophetess, as a sign that Judah’s enemies, Rezin, the king of Syria and Pekah, the king of Israel, would fall before the child reached the age of reason (Isaiah 7:1-8:4).

taken from: http://www.mediaspotlight.org/whatdo.htm

The Jewish festivals are said to be a foreshadowing and be a type of "multiple fulfillment". I cite the following:

Passover and Pentecost (Feast of Weeks or Shavuoth) have been fulfilled twice, once in the Old Testament and again in the New. The four autumn festivals await fulfillment. They are: Trumpets, Atonement (although partially fulfilled in Yahshua’s death), Tabernacles, and the last Great Day. All the commanded Feasts of Leviticus 23 will continue to be observed by Yahshua and His subjects in the coming Kingdom.

taken from: http://www.ynca.com/Mini%20Studies/b...s%20Jewish.htm

Here is another matter which might lend itself to enhancing the double fullfilling prophecy idea:

It is commonly understood today that the Jews of the first century did not understand that these Old Testament prophecies spoke of a single Messiah who would come twice—once in humiliation, then again in glorious exaltation.

http://www.ldolphin.org/70weeks/70-weeks-11.html

Here is another example:

Furthermore, when Jesus came the first time, He was preceded by John the Baptist who was much like Elijah the prophet. When Christ comes the second time, He will be preceded by the real Elijah. (Malachi 4:5-6) Numerous other examples of prophecies being fulfilled twice could be pointed out.

taken from: http://members.aol.com/jccunn/preface.htm

Here is a very relevant quote from a website regarding this issue that ask an important question:

Matthew 24: Is Double Fulfillment a Reasonable Option?

mfenemore submitted: "Some teach that Matthew 24 was to be fulfilled twice. The destruction of Judea in the first century was the first fulfillment; the second is for our future and next time it will have worldwide implications. "

taken from: http://planetpreterist.com/modules.p...ws&new_topic=5

Part of the "double fullfillment prophecy" issue is that its adherents say the first fulfillment can be a foreshadowing and the second fulfillment further demonstrates God's power.

Based on my present study which is only initial, it seems as if Mathew 24 is somewhat of a double prophecy and the first time in 70 A.D. was a partial fulfillment and a foreshadowing.

Perhaps, Nero/Domitian who has been associated with the antichrist was merely a foreshadowing.

The idea of double occuring prophecies seems somewhat credible at this point but not in every instance. I have not decided how I feel about this matter fully as I have waited to study prophecy last in the Bible.

Any input?

Sincerely,

Ken

[Athanasius]

Hii Kendemyer,

I've been thinking along the same lines, too. I think that a close phrase by phrase comparison of the parallel Olivet accounts brings out the fact that there were to be two seiges of Jerusalem, one in 70 AD and another yet to be fulfilled. See http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm, and you will see why I say this.

[Sheepdog]

Hii Kendemyer,

I've been thinking along the same lines, too. I think that a close phrase by phrase comparison of the parallel Olivet accounts brings out the fact that there were to be two seiges of Jerusalem, one in 70 AD and another yet to be fulfilled. See http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm, and you will see why I say this.

actually, there ended up being two seiges on Jerusalem (in fact i think there were three). initially the Roman military units which seiged Jerusalem withdrew because of fighting elsewhere in the empire, only to return later. It is thought that the Christians took the opportunity in between to flee the city, while the nonChristian Jews stayed, thinking they won the Jewish War.

i cite in support for this Dan Trotter's tapes on the Olivet Discourse (i cannot, for the life of me, remember which one specifically), which can be found here:
http://courses.coker.edu/dtrotter/co...ism/index.html

[Athanasius]

Originally posted by Sheepdog::

actually, there ended up being two seiges on Jerusalem (in fact i think there were three). initially the Roman military units which seiged Jerusalem withdrew because of fighting elsewhere in the empire, only to return later. It is thought that the Christians took the opportunity in between to flee the city, while the nonChristian Jews stayed, thinking they won the Jewish War.

Hi Sheepdog,

Yes, I recall reading about that too... there have been many seiges of Jerusalem. Perhaps I should clarify that I was speaking of seiges occuring when the city is under the control of the Jews, which result in the city being taken. There may perhaps even be some intervening seiges of this character between the one in 70 AD and the future seige associated with the abomination of desolation, but I think that Jesus has two historical circumtances in mind that will neccesitate fleeing to the mountains.

It appears to me that in the first circumstance, they are instructed to flee when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies. In the second circumstance, they are to flee upon seeing the abomination of desolation. I may be wrong about this, but since the phrase "abomination of desolation, is called "the abomination that maketh desolation" in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, it appears that the people in Jerusalem and Judea are instructed to flee in order to escape the desolation that is about to come as a result of the abomination.

Please consider Ezekiel 33:29" "Then shall they know that I am the LORD, when I have laid the land most desolate because of all their abominations which they have committed."

When God makes a land desolate, is it for the abominations of the conqueror who makes it desolate, or for the abominations of the people living in the land?

[Sheepdog]

Originally posted by Sheepdog::


Hi Sheepdog,

Yes, I recall reading about that too... there have been many seiges of Jerusalem. Perhaps I should clarify that I was speaking of seiges occuring when the city is under the control of the Jews, which result in the city being taken. There may perhaps even be some intervening seiges of this character between the one in 70 AD and the future seige associated with the abomination of desolation, but I think that Jesus has two historical circumtances in mind that will neccesitate fleeing to the mountains.

no what i mean is, near the end of the Jewish war there were 2 or 3 separate seiges. the final one concluded with the utter destruction of the city.

It appears to me that in the first circumstance, they are instructed to flee when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies. In the second circumstance, they are to flee upon seeing the abomination of desolation. I may be wrong about this, but since the phrase "abomination of desolation, is called "the abomination that maketh desolation" in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, it appears that the people in Jerusalem and Judea are instructed to flee in order to escape the desolation that is about to come as a result of the abomination.

some Preterists collapse those into the same thing. I.e., the abomination of [or, that makes] desolation is the Roman army. IMO there are some weaknesses to this, though it does seem to fit well with Daniel's prophecy.

note that it was reported that the Romans put their standards (the tall staff things with the emblems of Roman gods and such on them) up against one of the walls in Jersalem and sacrificed to it. That may have been associated with the abomination specifically.

Please consider Ezekiel 33:29" "Then shall they know that I am the LORD, when I have laid the land most desolate because of all their abominations which they have committed."

When God makes a land desolate, is it for the abominations of the conqueror who makes it desolate, or for the abominations of the people living in the land?

i'm not quite sure if that passage can be properly associated with Daniel's abomination. but to be honest, i'm still very new in this whole prophesy topic.

[Glenn P]

Ken,

the thing to remember is, we can only know that a double fulfilment was in mnd after the fact, as int he case of the virgin birth. You can;t read a prophecy where a double fulfilment has not yet occured, and concude that there is a second fulfilment to come, so it seems to me that the futurist is grasping at straws to get out of the problem when he claims that there is a double fulfilment.

[kendemyer]

TO: theonomy

There is some relevance to what you say. On the other hand it does not seem as if Mathew 24 was fulfilled in full. Second, it prevents preterist from being too dogmatic regarding Mathew 24. I also agree with with Milligan in my thoughts regarding Revelation (see: "It appears the earliest church fathers....." thread.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Glenn P]

Second, it prevents preterist from being too dogmatic regarding Mathew 24.

Only if there is reason to think some aspects of it DO refer to the future. The preterists present evidence that the events took place in the first century, so that must be our starting point. The only way to begin to build a case for double fulfilment is to present evidence that those events did not really fulfil the prophetic statements. If you want to present any such evidence, go right ahead.

Glenn

[Sheepdog]

agreed. there is a case to be made, though, that the language that seems to be yet unfufilled is being misinterpreted in the first place. for instance, some think that the disciples, having heard the Olivet Discourse, would not have expected to literally see Jesus floating down, riding on a cloud like it was a biycle.

now that i think about it, what about the generation being addressed? what relevance would the "as yet unfilled" section have to them? wouldn't they make the same objection that modern skeptics make, i.e. Jesus made a false prophesy? remember that Jesus is speaking to them, and we are onlookers from another time and place.

[kendemyer]

TO: sheepdog

You wrote:

some think that the disciples, having heard the Olivet Discourse, would not have expected to literally see Jesus floating down, riding on a cloud like it was a biycle.

Can you give us more exegesis and exposition on some of the passages regarding Jesus's return.

Here is some exposition you may wish to consider:

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


As one website commentator says: "Lightning can be seen physically" (see: http://members.tripod.com/debatorial_works/id60.htm ).


You, sheepdog, also wrote regarding the Apostles:

now that i think about it, what about the generation being addressed? what relevance would the "as yet unfilled" section have to them?

Is it necessary that the versus apply to them? Also, didn't Jesus tell them only the Father knows when the Son's return would be?

wouldn't they make the same objection that modern skeptics make, i.e. Jesus made a false prophesy? wouldn't they make the same objection that modern skeptics make, i.e. Jesus made a false prophesy?

If you have any Bible exegetical evidence for this hypothesis, please fully support it. Please address the Greek for the "this generation" of Mathew 24: 27 and the context of the Matthew 24 chapter. If you want the TWEB link that reflects my Bible exegesis please let me know and I can give it to you by email.

[Sheepdog]

Can you give us more exegesis and exposition on some of the passages regarding Jesus's return.

Here is some exposition you may wish to consider:

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

As one website commentator says: "Lightning can be seen physically" (see: http://members.tripod.com/debatorial_works/id60.htm ).

it is true that lightning can be seen physically, but that's besides the point. a multiheaded beast can be seen physically, but even the staunchest literalists think it is symbolic of a human antichrist (or a group or establishment).

basically the lightning represents the fact that the "coming" will be quick and unexpected. though surely everone in the region will see the affects, i don't believe taht was Jesus' point with the simile.

even you must concede that that was the meaning, unless you believe Jesus is physically coming in lightning form.

Is it necessary that the versus apply to them?

yes. in some way, all scripture must be anchored in the individuals, groups, or churches each text was addressing. remember, Jesus didn't give us the New Testament, all canonized and ready to go. rather, the New Testament is a compilation of texts; these texts themselves wheren't written for the sake of the compilation (though God obviously had that in His plan). read the prologues and epilogues to the Pauline epistles. they were addressed to their respective churches, to address issues those churches were presently involved in. look at the prologue of Luke and Acts, or the epilogue of John; they were written so that their respective audiences would believe. Revelation was written to the 7 churches in Asia Minor.

there is no basis for supposing that any section of the Bible wasn't intended for the immediate audience. we should be careful not to overspiritualize the written word, lest we do a disservice to the 1st century individuals and cultures, as well as to ourselves.

Also, didn't Jesus tell them only the Father knows when the Son's return would be?

yes but this is permitted in any view of eschatology. also, Jesus was speaking of a specific day or time not being known for his return; clearly Jesus could have known the ball park in which he would return. and, what we have evidenced in the Bible is an immediate ballpark. it was coming "soon," it was "to take place immediately after these things," and it was going to happen during "this generation." Jesus and company had no reason to obfuscate to their audience on this point: they wanted their immediate contemporaries to be ready, because it was coming soon and like a thief inthe night -- indeed it was coming like lightning!

If you have any Bible exegetical evidence for this hypothesis, please fully support it. Please address the Greek for the "this generation" of Mathew 24: 27 and the context of the Matthew 24 chapter. If you want the TWEB link that reflects my Bible exegesis please let me know and I can give it to you by email.

the above should be sufficient, though i thought it was in that thread that it was demonstrated that there was no evidence that "this generation" ever meant anything other than this immediate generation. i could be wrong, i know what thread you are talking about but haven't skimmed over it in a while. however, that is the state of affairs as far as i know.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Did we really need a Google citation to support the idea that lightning can be seen physically Ken? Do you think anywhere didn't know that such that a citation was necessary?

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

I see you have not lost your penchant for petty complaints.

Sincerely,

Ken