What is the foundational support for interpreting prophecies as having dual fulfillments?

Upvote:0

Dr. David Jeremiah wrote this article in 1972:

https://www.galaxie.com/article/gj13-2-02

“The Principle of Double Fulfillment in Interpreting Prophecy”

Jeremiah cites this as showing how old the controversy is:

The controversy over the principle of “double-fulfillment” in the interpretation of prophecy is not a new theological development. As far back as Theodore of Mopsuestia, there were conflicting opinions as to the validity of applying one prophetic passage to more than one situation. Theodore (350–428 A.D.), who was labeled “The Exegete” by his contemporaries, refused to accept any prophetic interpretation that approached duplicity.

Jeremiah names scholars on both sides of the issue.

My take is that the principle is hinted at here:

It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. (Proverbs 25:2, ESV)

Most prophecy is already presumed to have a meaning. If anything is hidden, by the pigeonhole principle, it must be an additional meaning added to what is already there.

Some such mysteries were revealed to Paul, to the men walking to Emmaus, and to the other Apostles. If that were the end of the matter, we could restrict double fulfillment to the things revealed to the Apostles and named in scripture. However, Revelation tells us of a scroll with seven seals. Those seals would not be immediately removed. Once removed by Christ, new information would be made available to the church. While that information could include new prophecy, it is likely to be comprised mostly of new understanding of existing prophecy.

A potent objection to double fulfillment is that it makes the Bible’s meaning unclear and adds subjectivity to its interpretation. One way this could be remedied is if God hid both the new meaning and a new set of hermeneutical principles that could be used to decode the message.

More post

Search Posts

Related post