It's widely neglected both in terms of quantity and quality. There are some pastors, apologists, and other individuals who are otherwise highly involved in relevant contexts, yet I don't recall ever seeing them argue for Christianity from the evidence for prophecy fulfillment. Or somebody will only use the argument to a ridiculously small extent. I occasionally hear people go as far as to say that they don't think there's any value to the argument from prophecy or that they think there's only some extremely small number of prophecy arguments they consider worth using. Contrast that to how prominent prophecy is in the Old Testament and how prominent appeals to fulfillment are in the New Testament and the early extrabiblical literature.
We've argued at length for a large amount of prophecy fulfillment and its high evidential value. See the collection of links on prophecy in general here and my collection of posts on Messianic prophecy in particular here, for example. For a larger number of posts (but not everything in our archives), see the posts under the Prophecy label here.
Why is the argument from prophecy so neglected? Probably for more than one reason.
Partly as an overreaction to how others have been careless and inaccurate in the process of appealing to the argument from prophecy. People often react to an error in one direction by moving too far in the opposite direction.
Peer pressure is another factor. A lot of modern cultures, as they've become more secular or anti-Christian in some other way, have become more hostile to the argument from prophecy and ridicule it and suggest that anybody who appeals to it is disreputable for doing so. There seems to be a lot of that in scholarly circles and among laymen who want to be considered more respectable by their peers in certain contexts, for instance.
Then there's the fact that many people are lazy, cowardly, or have other character problems that prevent them from doing the research and speaking up as they should. Things like recent developments in technology probably make that situation worse in some ways, since people now anticipate more potential to be challenged more rapidly and by a larger number and variety of people if they get involved in discussing the relevant issues. So, in a YouTube thread involving tens of thousands of people, nobody or just some fraction of one percent of the people involved will speak up and say what needs to be said.
Another factor probably is the complexity of the argument from prophecy. It's a multi-step argument. So is something like an argument for Jesus' resurrection. People often challenge appeals to the traditional authorship attributions of the New Testament documents, the nature of the resurrection appearance to Paul, whether Jesus' tomb was found empty, whether the apostles suffered and died for their belief in Jesus' resurrection, etc. It's not as though all of the controversies surrounding Jesus' resurrection can be settled with a one-sentence tweet or a ten-second video clip. But the resurrection is one event, whereas the appeal to prophecy tends to involve multiple events. Something like the fulfillment of Micah 5:2 will be combined with one or more other fulfillments to make a cumulative case, since one prophecy in isolation typically isn't adequate to make the case people want to make. And the genre, contextual, and interpretive disputes surrounding prophecy issues tend to be more complex than the ones surrounding Jesus' resurrection. The relevant prophecy sources are spread out over more time, come from a larger variety of authors, come from a larger variety of contexts, and so on. So, there are some ways in which the argument from prophecy is more complicated.
It's an argument that should be made, though. Stay focused on the value of the end result of making the argument, and keep working until you get there.
No comments:
Post a Comment