X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:19:47 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Interpretation of Prophecy

Jesse,

Some of what I am about say has already been alluded to by James
Kiefer, Brian Cobb, and others, but no as yet has laid the principles
by which many of us interpret prophecy.  The following is my humble
attempt to do so.

This is my initial reply to your use of internal arguments to
justify your interpretation of Matthew 24 and other passages.  I'm
sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, but I wanted to think
through my response carefully and talk to some other people about
it to make sure that I could articulate my views well.

In any case, I think that what is at issue here is whether there
is a sole fulfillment of Mt.24 (or any other prophetic scripture,
for that matter).  If you take the view that such prophecies are
fulfilled once and only once, then your viewpoint is valid.  If,
on the other hand, you take a type and antitype view of the
fulfillment of prophecy (which is what I do), then you are likely
to come to a somewhat different set of conclusions.

First, I would like to make sure that I have a correct under-
standing of your views.  Using Mt.24 as an example, you seem to be
saying that based on text and context alone (i.e., the internal
evidence), the events prophesied by Jesus in this passage must have
been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, regard-
less of whether or not there is any historical (external) evidence
that we know of to confirm them.  Assuming that this accurately
reflects your views, I can now go on to describe my views and tell
you where we seem to be parting company.

A definition of the type/antitype view of the fulfillment of
prophecy is in order at this point.  I would state that many
prophecies (this applies especially to messianic and eschato-
logical prophecies) are fulfilled more than once.  They have an
immediate or short-term fulfillment (the type), of which there can
be more than one, followed by a ultimate fulfillment at a later
date (the antitype).  An example of this is Moses' prophecy in
Deut.18:15,18 of the prophet like unto him whom God would raise up
to lead the people of Israel.  This prophecy was fulfilled
especially in Joshua, who led the people of Israel into the
promised land, and many time thereafter in various prophets whom
God sent to speak His word to His people.  Joshua especially and
all the subsequent old covenant prophets were the types, while
Jesus is the antitype, the ultimate or final fulfillment of the
prophecy of Moses (Acts 3:22).  In similar manner, many of the
prophecies of the destruction of evil persons and nations in the
Bible have had a short term fulfillment in the destruction of the
nations or individuals to which they referred (the type), and an
ultimate fulfillment in the final destruction of the wicked when
Jesus shall return.

Applying this principle to one of the events prophesied in
Mt.24:15, the appearance of the desolating sacrilege standing in
the holy place, we can make a number of conclusions.  First, as
stated by Jesus, this event was initially prophesied by Daniel
(Dan.9:27, 11:31, 12:11).  Second, as is clear from the testimony
of history, this prophecy was fulfilled prior to the birth of
Jesus in the events surrounding the invasion of Jerusalem by
Antiochus Epiphanes (the type).  The question which therefore
arises is this: was the razing of the Temple by the Romans in 70
AD the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy, or was it only
another type?  I would say that both of these events, the invasion
by Antiochus Epiphanes and the razing of the Temple are types
of the deeds of the ultimate man of lawlessness, the beast,
who will appear just before ChristUs ultimate return to judge the
wicked (1Thess.2:3ff, Rev.13).  In fact, one could say that the
fall of the man of lawlessness is a type of the ultimate
destruction of Satan.

Looking at Mt.24 as a whole, I can see ways in which one could
interpret every prophecy of Jesus (with the exception of His
return as described in verse 30) (see footnote) as being
fulfilled by historical events by 70 AD; however, I think that you
do scripture a disservice (and in so doing, do the Holy Spirit
who is the ultimate author of scripture a disservice) if you assume
that the events of 70 AD are the ultimate fulfillment of this passage.
The destruction of Jerusalem, as you have correctly pointed out, was
the judgement of God for the collective wickedness of many
generations of the Jewish people, culminating with their rejection
of Jesus as Messiah, but it is only a type of God's ultimate
judgement of all the nations of the world on the last day.

In conclusion, I would like to call to mind the words of Peter in
1Pet.1:10ff.  Peter effectively states that not even the OT
prophets fully understood how and when their prophecies of the
coming Messiah would be fulfilled.  I think a similar situation
applies to our understanding of NT prophecy.  While we can be sure
that Jesus Himself understood His words, we cannot know if His
disciples fully understood them, we cannot know if John fully
understood his own words in Revelation.  In all probability, they
did not, and we cannot understand them either until the events
actually happen.  The life, death, and resurrection of our Lord
indeed fulfilled the OT prophecies of the Messiah, but not in a
way that anyone expected them to be fulfilled.  Likewise, I think
that all Christians who are destined to be alive at time of the
return of Christ are likely to be surprised at how the prophecies
of His return will be fulfilled.

Hopefully, this answers your questions about my views; if not, at
least it provides a basis for further discussion.

Footnote:  I wrote this text prior to viewing mailbox, thus, I did
           not have the benefit of seeing James Kiefer's explanation
           of Mt.24:30.  Thank you James, for your clear exposition
           of the preterist amillennial view.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU