“Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning,” that through them we “might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). But we should not forget that though “these things” were “written for our admonition,” they also “happened unto them for ensamples” (1 Cor. 10:11). Many prophetic statements, historical incidents, and types that clearly pointed forward to the Messiah had also a more immediate meaning for those who heard and witnessed them. Prophetic messages addressed to the people of Israel were borne with respect to the historical circumstances that called them forth and were ordained of God to meet the needs of His people at the time they were given. Predictions of the OT prophets may be divided into the following four categories:

 1. Those that grew out of and were related only to the immediate historical situation or to events soon to occur. Such were Jeremiah’s acted prophecy of the wooden and iron yokes (ch. 28), his symbolic purchase of a field near Anathoth (ch. 32), and his prediction of the death of the false prophet Hananiah (ch. 28:15-17). Similarly, Ezekiel laid symbolic siege to a tile in the market place of Tel-abib (chs. 4 and 5), Amos denounced Israel’s neighbor nations (chs. 1 and 2), and Nahum predicted the fall of Nineveh (chs. 2 and 3).

 2. Those that pointed forward manifestly and exclusively to events related to the coming of the Messiah, such as the prophetic statements of Isa. 9:6, 7; 40:3-5; 53; 61:1-3; Dan. 9; Zech. 9:9; 13:1, 6, 7.

 3. Those prophecies of the book of Daniel that deal primarily with historical events of the remote future, that is, with the Christian Era and the time of the end, as specifically stated in the prophecies themselves (Dan. 2:44; 7:27; 8:14; 10:14; 11:40; 12:4).

 4. Those that have a dual application—first, to a local, historical situation; second, to the Messiah and to His kingdom. It is the prophecies of this fourth category that are most likely to be misunderstood and thus misapplied. Often this is because of a failure to realize that certain prophecies do have a dual aspect.

 The Scriptures abound with illustrations of prophecies having dual application. The promise to Abraham of a “seed” (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 22:18) clearly pointed forward to Christ (Matt. 1:1; Gal. 3:16), but met also a real and true fulfillment in the birth of Isaac

 (Gen. 13:16; 15:4, 5, 13; 17:7, 16, 19-21; 18:10; 21:1, 3). In fact, the earlier fulfillment in Isaac was a type of, and preparatory to, the ultimate fulfillment in Christ. A similar promise made to David was manifestly a prophecy concerning Christ (2 Sam 7:12, 13; Matt. 1:1; Acts 2:30), yet it applied also to the birth of Solomon (1 Kings 8:20). When Moses was about to lay down his duties as leader, and the people wondered who would take his place, he made the inspired prediction, “God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me” (Deut. 18:15). The context makes evident that this promise had an immediate application to the prophetic leadership of Israel in the years following the death of Moses (Deut. 18:18; cf. Ex. 20:19; Deut. 5:25-27; see also Num. 27:18-23; Deut. 34:9, 10; Hosea 12:10, 13), yet Inspiration declares that “there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses” (Deut. 34:10; cf. Num. 12:6-8). Christ alone could fully meet the conditions set forth in Moses’ prediction (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40).

 In a similar way the paschal lamb stood first for the literal, historical deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and later for the spiritual deliverance of all God’s people from sin through the Messiah (1 Cor. 5:7). The rock smitten in the wilderness provided literal water for a thirsty people, and accordingly became a type of the Rock, Christ Jesus, who would offer the water of life freely to all men (John 4:10; 7:37; 1 Cor. 10:4). In like manner, the manna that fell from heaven provided bread to satisfy the hunger of Israel, but Jesus declared long afterward that He was “the true bread from heaven” (John 6:31). The high priest Joshua was crowned with literal crowns, in prophetic anticipation of the coronation of Christ as priest and king (Zech. 6:9-13; 9:9).

 Referring to the deliverance of Israel from bondage, Hosea spoke of God calling His “son out of Egypt” (Hosea 11:1), yet Matthew sees in the words of Hosea a prophecy of Christ (Matt. 2:15). Jeremiah’s reference to “Rahel weeping for her children” (Jer. 31:10, 11, 15, 16, 20) originally applied to the Babylonian captivity, as the context clearly reveals, but the evangelist finds it prophetic of Herod’s slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:18). Isaiah vividly portrayed the spiritual state of Israel in his day (Isa. 6:9, 10; 29:13), but Christ declared these words prophetic of His generation (Matt 13:14, 15; 15:7-9), saying, “Well did Esaias prophesy of you.” Paul’s exegesis of historical incidents and prophetic statements recorded in the OT conforms to the pattern set by Christ and the evangelists. In fact, he interprets many passages in such a way as might not always be evident from the OT alone (see Acts 13:32, 33; 2 Cor. 8:15; Gal. 3:13, 16; 4:22-31; 1 Tim. 5:17, 18; Heb. 1:5-8; 10:5) The NT writers thus constantly unfold, explain, and interpret the prophetic statements of the OT.

 These, and numerous other illustrations that might be given, make evident that Scriptural statements later seen to be prophetic of Christ were often full of literal and more immediate meaning to the people who first heard them and witnessed the events described. Their dim vision may, indeed, have confined the inspired statements to their own day. But later, holy prophets guided by inspiration saw in those very statements further prophetic meaning (Luke 24:25-27, 32; John 16:13; 1 Peter 1:10-12). It was often only when Christ or the Holy Spirit “opened ... their understanding” that men of Christian times began to “understand the [OT] scriptures” in their fullness (Luke 24:45). Previously, like their unbelieving countrymen, they overlooked many prophecies that point to the first advent, and misapplied others that refer exclusively to the second (DA 30, 777).

 It is apparent, furthermore, that certain OT prophecies pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah and to the establishment of His kingdom apply in part to the first advent, and in part to the second. Thus, in His first sermon at Nazareth, Christ quoted Isa. 61:1-3 as being fulfilled “this day” (Luke 4:16-21), yet significantly omitted reference to “the day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 61:2—for the simple reason that the “day of vengeance” comes only with the second advent. Elijah’s appointed ministry of turning the hearts of Israel to their heavenly Father (1 Kings 18:36-40) is used by later prophets as a type of the work of John the Baptist (Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; 4:5, 6; John 1:23; Matt. 11:9-17; 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13; Luke 7:24-27). But the prediction of Elijah’s appearance “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord” (Mal. 4:5) is also to be fulfilled again in our time (3T 62). At Pentecost, Peter pointed to Joel 2:28-32 as being fulfilled that day (Acts 2:16-21); but Joel’s words are to find a second fulfillment in our day (EW 142; AA 54, 55). Similarly, certain of the predictions of Matt. 24 pointed forward both to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and to the end of time (DA 628; GC 22, 25).

 The question naturally arises: How can we know when a particular historical incident may rightly be viewed as having a counterpart in a later event, or a prophetic statement as having a dual application? The answer is: When an inspired writer makes such an application of it. To go beyond that which is clearly set forth by Inspiration is to enter the realm of personal opinion. In an age when every wind of doctrine is blowing, it is well to make certain that our understanding of Scripture rests upon a firm and plain “Thus saith the Lord” (see Deut. 29:29; Isa. 50:11; Jer. 2:13; Matt. 7:24-28; 1 Cor. 2:4, 5, 12, 13; Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:2-4, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; Rev. 22:18). The safe rule in Biblical interpretation is to compare scripture with scripture. In no other way can we be secure against the fanciful, even grotesque, explanations that some have given to OT prophecies.

 Though only the local and immediate application may have been understood at the time the prophecy was originally given, yet in the foreknowledge of God provision was also made for the complete and ultimate application to Christ, or to the signs foretelling His second advent, or to the establishment of His kingdom. The fact that the prophets themselves may not have been aware that their inspired utterances had, at times, a dual application in no way impairs the validity of such an application. Rather, it testifies to the more than human wisdom that inspired the utterance. Abraham was not the only one of whom Christ could have said that he saw “my day: ... and was glad” (John 8:56), for the prophets themselves often gave diligent study to their own messages, the better to understand the Messianic import of which they themselves may at first have been but dimly aware (1 Peter 1:10-12).

The force of a prophecy regarding Christ is in no way weakened because the prophet’s words apply first to a more immediate historical situation. Often the first and more immediate fulfillment serves not only to confirm and to clarify the second but may even be requisite to it. When a NT writer applies the statement of an OT prophet to NT or subsequent times, to deny the validity of such an application is to deny the inspiration of the NT writer. But when the context of an OT statement makes evident that it applies also to an immediate historical situation, to deny this application would be to violate a primary rule of interpretation; namely, that an examination of context and historical setting is fundamental to a correct understanding of any passage.

 Believing both OT and NT writers to be fully inspired, we must, to be consistent, believe that certain prophecies have a dual application. Old Testament promises made originally to literal Israel are to be fulfilled, in principle at least, to spiritual Israel. And as literal Israel looked forward to a “rest” in the earthly Canaan, but failed to enter in, it is our privilege to look forward in hope and faith to an eternal rest in the heavenly Canaan (Heb. 4:8-11; see also Matt. 25:34).

The word translated “prophet” is from the verb “to tell,” “to announce.” The prediction of future events is hardly the major duty of the prophetic office. The prophet’s primary duty is to speak, for God, words of counsel, warning, and reproof. The word “prophet” is from the Gr. prophetes, “to speak in behalf of,” that is, in behalf of someone else. This is the Bible conception of a prophet. He is a spokesman for God.