That possibility certainly isn’t ruled out, but it is a stretch for me without my seeing a good deal of knowledge from a reputable authority both into the history of that time and the motives of those kings as well as insight into the meanings that Isaiah and Ezekiel intended to transmit from their visions. I mean, if we’re talking about treading lightly the waters of “interpretation”, it takes a lot more liberty of interpretation to get to that than it does the mere observation that the books explicitly name the kings of Herod and Tyre.
Yes, but remember that -from the Christian perspective- the OT was meant to be fulfilled, which means that it cannot be 100% “filled,” otherwise there would be nothing to fulfill.
OT prophecies usually have two elements: e.g., something (sometimes a miracle, as with Hannah) that prompts a/the prophecy, accompanied by a partial fulfillment, which accredits the prophecy/prophet. God knows we can’t listen to just any jack or jill who claims to be God’s prophet: he accredits his prophets by accompanying their prophecies or ministries with signs, wonders or miracles: signs, e.g., might be natural (e.g., an earthquake, a flood, a draught or whatever) but their timing is such that it’s the height of incredulity to dismiss it as an accident or coincidence. Miracles are, obviously, clearly outside the natural or usual order, such as spontaneous and complete healings or the Sun standing still for extended periods of time or behaving irradically (e.g., at Fatima).
A partially fulfilled prophecy ensures the Prophet is remembered, because not all prophecies are contemporary. You have to ensure that the prophecy is remembered by future generations. If you don’t accompany future prophecies with partial fulfillments or realizations, then the prophecy would be forgotten. So what happens is certain prophecies are noted for being either 1) completely fulfilled later by this or that event, and are now used as proof for God’s power or Lordship over history; or 2) partly fulfilled and the full manifestation is yet to come about.
Take, e.g., Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth was partly fulfilled when the king’s wife (if memory serves me) became pregnant, but she didn’t completely realize the prophecy because she was already married (I think she was barren however). This accredits the prophet but leaves the original prophecy a source of mystery, wonder and expectation. Hannah’s prophecy was likewise accredited with a partial fulfillmet in her having more children, but she did not completely fulfill the prophecy in her person, as she did not herself have the seven children the prophecy predicted, but was short of that number. Abraham, whom the OT already explicitly named a Prophet, said that “God himself shall provide the lamb” (for the sacrifice). God provided Abraham with a ram.
In the case of the devil as fallen angel or the Antichrist, the historical figures used and the descriptions employed to describe them sometimes do not completely line-up. Consequently the audience realizes that this prophecy is not* just *about this historical figure, but most also be about
another, e.g., possible a future figure who will fulfill to the letter all of the criteria or is simultaneously also about the devil who, of course, exists contemporaneously.
