Skeptical

I've seen some christian postings claiming that even though the supposed "prophecies" about Jesus in the OT are obvious references to other events not related to Jesus, they are still valid references to Jesus because they have not just a single reference point, but are in fact "double" references to multiple events. The so-called "double fulfillment" theory.

I think this idea is strange and cannot reasonably be tied to any objective standard, but my question is whether this idea is to be found anywhere in the Jewish tradition prior to the advent of christianity. Or is this just something invented by christian apologists? Is there a known origin of this idea by a single individual or group of individuals?

CJD

I would think that the 'double fulfillment' bit is a way for many Christians to crystallize typological 'fulfillments', which do have precedence. For example, the oracle of Isa. 7 is fulfilled at the beginning of Isa. 8. In the gospel of Matthew, the author sees Jesus of Nazareth as the ultimate — and last — 'fulfillment' of the old oracle.

Many Christians aren't comfortable with this, though, wanting something a little more 'set in stone'. Thus: "Yes, we see Isa's oracle fulfilled then, but although he didn't know it, this prophecy has a 'double' fulfillment." This basically suffers under the assumption that any time a prophet utters a prognostication that it must come to pass. What it fails to realize is that prophecies in general were understood to be conditional.

Best,

CJD

Skeptical

Right. So my question is basically is there anything like this in the pre-christian Jewish tradtions? I suspect not, but this is not an area I have done a lot of research in.

sharon45

Of course "double prophecies" are not supported because of the christian religion in itself and that it easily 'opens the door' for 'triple' or 'quadruple' onward prophecies. That would make a complete mockery of the whole idea, something many christians fail to understand.

Skeptical

Yes, that thought had occured to me as well. If it can occur twice, why not three or four or more. Also, based on the methodology used, a passage doesn't even have to appear to _be_ a prophecy in the first place, most of the so-called prophecies relating to Jesus do not on their face appear to be prophecies at all. So by that logic, you can pick any passages you want and attribute them to a prophecy, regardless if they are a prophecy on their face and if they clearly indicate events that have already occured.

By this method you could show that Kermit the frog is the "messiah".

Mageth

Indeed...or even the dreaded DOUBLE SECRET PROPHECY.

sharon45

Correct, that is much of why a false prophet became Lord.

CJD

Now, now. The reason why this Jesus was called the Christ was for typological reasons. Not because the authors of the NT believed the old oracles were originally speaking of this Jesus. Don't confuse how the Jewish Christians (the NT writers) interpreted the TNK with how the McDowell-types do today.

CJD

sharon45

No, it is jesus himself adding to this idea as well. He mentions passages from the OT that obviously do not pertain to him, so the christian excuss is for a "double meaning" or "double prophecy" to be applied in those cases. I've seen a list of at list 300 'prophecies' to be associated to jesus from out of the bible. As I've said before, with such a tactic to use for this list, I am greatly surprised there really isn't thousands of supposed prophecies instead. I could easily find many passages that are far less reaching than most of the ones accepted now.

Amaleq13

They were saying Jesus was "messiahesque" even if he didn't fit the mold of a traditional messiah?

As opposed to "McDowell-types" who argue that earlier conceptions were just wrong?