Ronald E. Clements, Prophecy and Fulfillment, Epworth Review 10.3 (Sept. 1983): 72-82.
Prophecy and Fulfilment
Ronald E. Clements [p.72]
The idea of the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament provides the New Testament with one of the foremost of its categories for the interpretation of Gods action in Jesus. Recent study of the redactional history of the prophetic literature shows how the idea of a single comprehensive divine act of the fulfilment of prophecy took shape, and the distinctive features of the New Testament interpretation may be compared with this.
We have become accustomed to thinking and working with two distinct subjects which we call Old Testament Theology and New Testament Theology. Increasingly however a number of scholars have come to argue for what might be called a Biblical Theology which would pay special attention to the structure and composition of the two Testaments as collective entities, and in particular to their relationship to each other.1 Certainly there is something distinctly odd about any Christian commitment to the Old Testament which bypasses the major arguments and themes which provide the New Testament writers with the grounds for their adherence to, [p.73] and use of, the Old Testament. In any case we must consider what it is that makes one Testament Old and the other New since this very nomenclature implies a form of relationship to each other. So it is that the theme of prophecy and fulfilment provides for the New Testament authors one of the foremost categories by which individual passages from the Old Testament are interpreted as relevant to the events and personalities of the New. More than this can be noted, for in fact the entire message and significance contained in the Old Testament is regarded as a divine promise, made concrete through individual prophecies, of the events concerning Jesus Christ and the birth of the Christian Church. Prophecy and its fulfilment therefore provide a quite fundamental means of relating the two Testaments to each other.2 In doing so the notion of prophetic fulfilment establishes the primary category of interpretation for what prophecy means, and how it is to be understood in relation to human life and history. It is not overpressing the claim to argue that, so far as the New Testament writers are concerned, it is through its fulfilment that the meaning and significance of prophecy becomes plain. We may at the outset draw attention to two features which must largely be left outside the scope of our discussion. Both relate to the way in which the New Testament authors deal with parts of the Old Testament. The first concerns the fact that there are many instances where the New Testament takes as prophecies passages which were clearly not so intended in the Old Testament; e.g. Matt. 2:23 with Ju. 13:7. Secondly, and in a rather similar vein, there are many instances where the New Testament reads back into the Old Testament text a meaning which could clearly not have been so understood from its original context and where the original sense is quite plain; e.g. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1. Both of these features are undoubtedly the consequence of a kind of exuberant overspill, where the central conviction that the fulfilment of prophecy has taken place has led to an enthusiastic searching through the Old Testament scriptures to trace as many such prophecies as possible. Their strained and 1 Cf. H. Gese. Tradition and Biblical Theology, Eng. Tr. by R. P. OHara and D. A. Knight. Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Knight. Philadelphia, 1977, pp.301-26. 2 Cf. R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, Grand Rapids, 1975, pp.133ff.
Ronald E. Clements, Prophecy and Fulfillment, Epworth Review 10.3 (Sept. 1983): 72-82. rather artificial character should not lead us to dismiss the whole idea of the fulfilment of prophecy as built up from similarly strained and artificial premises. What we must do is to look at the more central and direct claims of this kind, and seek to understand how they have arisen and what it is that they assert, so far as they lend meaning to prophecy. Modern discussion of the problem owes a good deal to an interesting and provocative lecture of Rudolf Bultmanns, dating from 1949. We may usefully cite some of his opening words: According to the conception which prevails in the New Testament and in the tradition of the Church, prophecy is understood to be the forecasting of a future happening, and fulfilment is the occurrence of what has been forecast. And if the prophecy is authorized by God, it is to a certain extent a promise of Gods, which finds its fulfilment it what happens later.3 Bultmann, following a current of criticism which has been extremely widespread in the twentieth century, goes on to argue that the artificiality of the manner by which such prophetic foretellings are matched up with subsequent events means that such a mode of argument can have little or no force for the modern critical mind. He proceeds in consequence to draw attention to the way in which the German nineteenth-century theologian, J.C.K. von Hofmann, extended this form of the ancient argument from prophecy into a more directly historical area.4 In [p.74] this the events recounted in the Old Testament constitute the basis for Gods Promise, and the events of the New form the Fulfilment. In this fashion history takes over from the specific texts and words of prophecy and a very much broader basis is given to the argument. Quite recently a relatively similar position has been advocated by the Roman Catholic scholar J. Becker in relation to the messianic hope.5 In spite of the seeming attractions of such a modern reinterpretation of the biblical perspectives, I believe that we should dismiss them for two reasons. The first is that it is very far from clear what kind of validity can he attached to claims that a given range of historical events can fulfil the implicit expectations, or significance, of earlier events. The very nature of history as an ongoing process reveals continuity and causal connectedness of such a kind as to preclude any sort of end-point, such as a fulfilment requires. In any case we must recognize that Judaism would certainly not recognize the New Testament events to be a fulfilment of the Old, and, although this could not be a final objection, it points the need for a fuller definition of what it is in the Old Testament that is fulfilled. Is it the abandonment of Jewish claims to nationhood, or the abandonment of claims to the land of Israel, which constitute fulfilment? This leads us to the second objection which is that the biblical understanding of prophecy lays special stress on its verbal character with its particular set of verbal images. Hence it is that the New Testament writers can find their assurances of prophetic fulfilment in the appropriateness of such images as a virgin shall conceive..., or in the triumphal entry of the messiah into Jerusalem riding upon an ass (Zech. 9:9). All of this points to an awareness that it is supremely the verbal character of prophecy and its rich use of poetic images which renders it capable of special fulfilment. This provides both the strength and weakness of the biblical view of prophecy and its fulfilment. The strength lies in the clarity and appropriateness with which the prophetic imagery can be applied to the New Testament
3 R. Bultmann, Prophecy and Fulfilment. Essays Philosophical and Theological, Eng. Tr. J. C. G. Greig, London, 1955, p.182. 4 R. Bultmann, art cit., pp.188ff. 5 J. Becker, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament, Eng. Tr. D. E. Green, it Edinburgh, 1980; cf. especially p.95: Messianic expectation is a matter not of isolated prophetic messages but of the history of Israel.
Ronald E. Clements, Prophecy and Fulfillment, Epworth Review 10.3 (Sept. 1983): 72-82. persons and events; the weakness, correspondingly, lies in the complete detachment, and lack of contextual identity, between the original prophecy and what is claimed as its fulfilment. Matt. 2:18, for example, sees a fulfilment of Jer. 31:15 in Herods slaughter of the innocents, although it is certain that what the Jeremiah passage was referring to was the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by the armies of Babylon. We may note a number of important features which have a bearing on this question of the fulfilment of prophecy. The first of these is that, from the New Testament point of view, the length of time that elapsed between the prophets speaking and the event which is held to fulfil his words can be a very long one, so long in fact that it appears unreasonable, and almost incredible, that events could be regarded as foreseeable so long in advance of their occurrence.6 In the overall perspective adopted by the New Testament writers this claim that prophecy has been fulfilled performs a dual role. First it affirms that Jesus really is the long foretold Saviour-Messiah and Deliverer of Israel. Because so many prophecies are held to have been fulfilled in his life and work his divine origin is held not to be in doubt. Secondly, and in close connection with this, the claim is upheld that the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth which have given rise to the Christian Church have been truly planned and intended by God. The evidence for this is shown in that they [p.75] have been foretold earlier by prophets so that, at one stroke, both the divine origin of the prophecy and the divine plan latent in the events of its fulfilment are made plain. Only the God who controls all history can have foreseen its development so far ahead. In this fashion the long interval of time which has elapsed between the prophetic utterance and its fulfilment is used to intensify the cla