As I stand in the greater Los Angeles basin and look toward the mountains to the northeast, I see a single mountainous ridge on the horizon. Yet if I were to drive directly toward the mountains, I would soon realize that what appeared to be a single ridge was actually a series of hills, valleys, and mountains separated by many miles. So it is with some Old Testament prophecies.
The simple example is of this is Joel's prophecy of a future outpouring of God's Spirit (Joel 2.28-32; cf. Ezk 36.24-28) against Peter's claim of fulfillment at Pentecost (Acts 2.16) and obvious incompleteness (Mt 24.29-31; Lk 21.25-28).
2 comments:
I think we are on dangerous grounds if we think prophesy can come true more than once. When would we ever know when the prophesy has come true for the last time? We would never! Could the Messiah be born of a virgin again? Why not? How would we know? This "prophetic prospective" theory is an idea made up by man to try and explain things we don't understand. There is no basis for this in scripture.
I have to disagree with you on this assessment that Peter's "claim" of fulfillment was wrong and "obviously incomplete". You then quote proof of Peter's error by quoting from Matthew and Luke as if Peter missed that part of the prophesy. Part of Peter's quote of Joel was:
Acts 2:19-20
19 I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
Peter just spent 40 days with Jesus as He taught them on the kingdom. Could the inspired preaching of Peter now get it wrong?
Peter didn't say "this is something like" or "this is part of that". Peter said "this is that". He was telling them that the prophesy of the last days that Joel spoke of some 500 years before had now arrived. They were living in the predicted last days. Peter also confined his last days discussion to his generation, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation". verse 40.
Peter wasn't mistaken. I think we are mistaken if we think Peter was wrong!
Jack - thanks for the feedback. I agree with you on the need to proceed cautiously. I'm not convinced however that prophetic prospective is dangerous. I don't see the danger as it has been applied here and at the same time I see problems with other eschatological theories attempting to avoid this.
In the end, we are all trying to explain things we cannot fully understand. That shouldn't deter us, instead we need to press in all the more.
As for Peter, you are correct, he wasn't mistaken. That's the point I'm making here. He is completely correct and yet there is more. I understand you do not accept this because you reject the concept of prospective but I hope you didn't think I was saying Peter was wrong.
Post a Comment