Yesterday, I read that "all prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus." What does this mean and is this true?
Although the phrase, "everything/all prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus" sounds super spiritual, the claim actually strips Jesus' second coming of significance. I believe we can recognize the crucial importance of Jesus' 1st coming while also looking forward to His return and all that He will accomplish. While it is true that Jesus is the One who fulfills everything, it is not true that everything is already fulfilled. In other words, just because Jesus fulfilled many prophecies by His first coming does not mean He fulfilled all prophecies.
Do people actually make the claim that everything was fulfilled by His first coming?
Yes, for example: “The New Testament writers claimed that Jesus was the true Israel of God and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. So what remains of the dispensationalists’ case that these prophecies will yet be fulfilled in a future millennium? They vanish in Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled them.” - Kim Riddlebarger
And also: "The point is that Jesus Christ and his Church are the focal and terminating point of all prophecy." - Sam Storms
And also: “Divine space is now no longer located in a place but in a person.” - Gary Burge
What are the implications if Jesus and the Church are the "terminating point of all prophecy"?
Essentially, the author is claiming that there are no prophecies left to be fulfilled. All of the prophecies found in the prophets, for example, are subsumed in Christ and His first coming. That is why literal prophecies about Israel's regathering, a new temple in Jerusalem etc are all allegorized. A return of ethnic, national Israel, as is clearly foretold by the prophets, does not fit presupposed ideas that the Church is the New Israel.
Does the New Testament teach this?
No. There is no biblical support for this "vanishing" theology. This position removes, or lessens the importance of, Bible prophecy that relates to things like Israel's future restoration, land, and a temple. Fully implemented, vanishing theology changes the Bible's storyline. But if that big of a change happened, you would think it would be explicitly clear, right?
How do people arrive at this conclusion when there is so much left to be restored and accomplished?
The detailed descriptions of the prophets are reinterpreted through a mystical lens whereby the One who fulfills everything, Jesus the Messiah, suddenly becomes the One who erases everything. It's a spiritualization of the text, an allegorization that distorts the plain sense meaning. Instead, the Bible, including the NT, make plenty of predictions that Jesus did not yet fulfill by way of His first coming.
Do we have any examples of previous prophecies "vanishing"?
No. There are no previous examples of this. All fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled in its plain sense fashion. There is no reason to introduce mysticism/allegory into the text. The NT authors did not do it. And we should not do it today. A spiritualization of the text encourages and enables eisegesis. Eisegesis is the practice of placing our own meanings, ideas and biases onto the text. What we are aiming for is exegesis, taking the meanings and ideas out of the text.
How do I know if I am reading or hearing something that promotes a "vanishing" theology?
As a whole, proponents claim the Bible's storyline changed upon Jesus' first coming. Be attuned to phrases like the following:
"Everything is fulfilled in Jesus"
This claim ignores clear Bible prophecies that are not yet fulfilled. It spiritualizes most unfulfilled prophecies, often about Israel, while leaving the fulfilled prophecies as literal fulfillment. This is inconsistent at best, and very biased at the worst.
"The NT authors redefined the land."
No, they did not. Just because NT authors sometimes use physical realities as illustrations does not mean they are redefining them or no longer see physical realities as important. The reality of those things is actually what makes the illustrations meaningful.
"The church fulfills Israel."
This claim is nowhere found in Scripture. The repetition of an idea, even in commentaries, does not make it true. No verse, in its context, supports this claim. If a verse seems unclear, interpret it in light of what is clear.
What if a natural outworking of this vanishing viewpoint is a denial of His return? For example, if everything has been fulfilled by His first coming or subsumed by Him, maybe there is no reason for His return?
Perhaps you are onto something. Though nobody is proposing this today (so far as I know), it could be a natural outworking of a theology that views Jesus's first coming as the "terminating point of all prophecy:
"First, be aware of this: Scoffers will come in the last days to scoff, living according to their own desires, saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? Ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation.”
- 2 Peter 3:3-4
In conclusion, Dr.
summarizes well in his latest book, Dispensational Hermeneutics: "Fulfillment in Jesus does not mean Old Testament prophetic details vanish, dissolve, or evaporate. No biblical support exists for this idea. The New Testament writers do not apply a mystical, metaphysical personalism hermeneutic concerning Jesus that makes details of Bible prophecies evaporate into Him."