One common explanation is that even though the prophecy seemed to be about a near event it was really about Jesus.

Another explanation is that somehow the prophet is referring to both events.

I’d like to suggest another possibility for some prophecies. I think it is more accurate to say that the event that happened closer to the prophecy is itself a prophecy of Jesus and his Work and new people. For example, rather than debate whether prophecies of the return from exile are really prophecies of Jesus, perhaps the return from exile is itself a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ.

Here’s one line of evidence that this must be the case:

And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Matthew 2.14-15).

Matthew is referring to a prophecy given by Hosea. Here’s the passage:

When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
The more they were called,
the more they went away;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals
and burning offerings to idols (Hosea 11.1-2).

So here we have a prophecy that doesn’t even purport to be about the future. In fact, the person’s being talked about (the whole nation of Israel) actually behaved in a way that Jesus never did. So what is going on?

The answer that seems obvious to me is that Matthew thinks that Jesus was re-living Israel’s whole experience (only without sin). Israel’s whole history is a prophecy of Jesus and Jesus relives it. Hosea’s authority is invoked to speak of Israel as a single son. But aside from that naming, it is the event of the Exodus from Egypt that prophesies the escape of Jesus of Israel, the new Egypt where Herod plays the part of Pharaoh killing the babies.