The Dual Fulfilment Fallacy

I'm someone who is still at the core of my Eschatology a Premillennial Futurist, but who does interpret a good number of individual Prophecies in ways that fit how a Preterist and/or Historicist could interpret them.  

When I try to argue to a fellow Futurist that a certain Prophecy was clearly meant to be the near future of when the Prophecy was given, or even that at least how it begins was, that Prophets can't really be considered confirmed Prophets at all if nothing they predicted was fulfilled in their lifetime.  I occasionally get responses about the Dual Fulfilment concept, making it sound like it's an absolute that every prophecy has at least 2 fulfilments, near and far.  Understanding it this way makes it almsot impossible to definitively argue for anything.

Nathan's Prophecy about the Son of David building The Temple in 2 Samuel 7 is the core foundation upon which the dual fulfilment concept is based, and the reason why it can't even be called inherently Christian, every Jew who believes in a yet future Messiah Ben-David believes this Prophecy has a second fulfilment in addition to Solomon.

But the thing about this most undisputed case of a second fulfillment being needed, is that the first fulfilment failed.  Now make no mistake God always knew what was gonna happen, but the fact still remains that in theory Solomon alone could have been all this Prophecy needed, but he failed, the entire history of the divided kingdom is the legacy of Solomon's failure.  When you properly add that context it's not a dual fulfilment at all, it's only kind of applicable to Solomon at all because of what could have been.

That's why in my opinion dual fulfilments are possible and occasionally worth speculating on.  But to start building doctrine on some absolute expectation that no Prophecy is properly fulfilled till it's fulfilled twice is in my opinion foolish.

A lot of other almost undisputed examples of dual fulfilments are also ones where the second or final fulfilment is Jesus.  But in a lot of those cases it's typology, to Christians the applicability to Jesus is what matters most because we view everything through the lens of Jesus. But I would still call it wrong to act like that Prophecy wasn't actually fully fulfilled till Jesus.  The sense in which Jesus repeats it is a nice bonus for our Christian view of The Bible's metanarrative, but it often isn't at all what the original Prophet was concerned with.

Any Prophecy where I do feel that Prophecy was always chiefly about Jesus, I generally seek to, like with the failure of Solomon thesis, deconstruct the near fulfilment, which for example is how I currently treat Isaiah 7-8.  

However I no longer desire to treat the "antichrist" the same way.  I actually think we're bordering on Dualism heresy when we treat that figure like a mirror image.  So yes in a sense every Hero of The Hebrew Bible is a foreshadowing of Christ, but that doesn't make every villain a similar type of the "Antichrist".

And the thing about a lot of the Prophecies I do think are about the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in 70 AD. 70 AD was in a sense itself the second fulfilment, it was a repeat of the history of the fall to Nebuchadnezzar in 588 BC. so saying it must happen again in the future is arguing for a full on third fulfilment.

What I'm criticizing here is partly stuff I've been guilty of myself in the past on this very blog.  This is a product of how I feel I've grown wiser as a student of Prophecy.

In The Case of the Abomination of Desolation, Jesus tells us that an already fulfilled event will happen again.  However that doesn't mean every detail of Daniel 11-12 (or 9) is going to happen twice, the context of the next Abomination of Desolation could be very different.  I try to define what the AoD is based on the initial fulfilment of those prophecies, but that's it, everything leading up to and following it could and probably will be different.