178
K. Bangert
passage in Jeremiah 18 where the prophet visits a potter’s house and where the
people of Israel are likened to the clay in the potter’s hands (i.e. in Yahweh’s hands)
and which the potter may mold into whatever pleases him. Then we read:
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break
down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I
will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a
nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening
to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer 18,7–10 NEV)
The lesson to be learned from this passage is that not only the qualified predictions but
also the other prophecies were subject to implicit conditionalities. Sincere repentance
as well as flagrant disobedience could effect the outcome of predictions which was
the reason why in some cases God advised not to intervene. And Pratt’s survey of
Scripture reveals “that the descriptions of God’s reactions in Jeremiah 18 are only
representative” in that God reacted to human responses in many different ways.
One might think that the third type (predictions without qualifications) would
be unequivocal and definite. However, argues Pratt, the Old Testament abounds
with examples of unqualified predictions of events that did not take place, Jonah’s
announcement to the city of Nineveh being probably the most prominent one. But
there are other such predictions as well in which the predicted future simply did not
come to pass. What causes these turns of event? “Each text explicitly sights human
responses as the grounds for the deviation.” The people repented or prayed upon
hearing the prophetic word. “These passages indicate that the fulfillment of at least
some unqualified predictions were subject to the contingency of human response.
Conditions did not have to be stated explicitly to be operative.”
But unfulfilled predictions also pose a problem. When a prediction fails to come
to pass, this is considered a false prophecy, at least according to Deut 18:22 where it
states: “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to
pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken
it presumptuously.” (ESV) Hence, the fulfillment of a prediction was to be a test and a
hallmark of a prophet’s genuineness and truthfulness. However, even that seemingly
straightforward test of true prophecy doesn’t stand the Old Testament evidence, as “it
does not account for the many predictions from canonical (and thus true) prophets
that were not realized”, so Pratt. Hence, he concludes that “intervening historical
contingencies had a bearing on all three major types of prophetic predictions”.
One question to be raised in light of such prophetic contingencies is this: How
could the listeners be certain of the future or the truthfulness of the prophetic predictions if there was always an implicit conditionality in them? For an answer, Pratt
points to an Old Testament parameter to which God had bound himself. “To be
more specific, the prophets looked to Yahweh’s covenants to guide their expectations of what the future held.” In other words, the prophets always operated within
the framework of God’s covenants. We already discussed above the significance of
the covenants within the context of Biblical theology. The prophetic corpus explicitly
mentions the covenant with Noah (Isa 54:9), Abraham (e.g. Isa 41:8 51:2Jer 33:26
Mic 7:20), Moses (e.g. Isa 63:11, 12 Dan 9:11, 13 Mic 6:4; Mal 4:4) and David (e.g.
K. Bangert
passage in Jeremiah 18 where the prophet visits a potter’s house and where the
people of Israel are likened to the clay in the potter’s hands (i.e. in Yahweh’s hands)
and which the potter may mold into whatever pleases him. Then we read:
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break
down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I
will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a
nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening
to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer 18,7–10 NEV)
The lesson to be learned from this passage is that not only the qualified predictions but
also the other prophecies were subject to implicit conditionalities. Sincere repentance
as well as flagrant disobedience could effect the outcome of predictions which was
the reason why in some cases God advised not to intervene. And Pratt’s survey of
Scripture reveals “that the descriptions of God’s reactions in Jeremiah 18 are only
representative” in that God reacted to human responses in many different ways.
One might think that the third type (predictions without qualifications) would
be unequivocal and definite. However, argues Pratt, the Old Testament abounds
with examples of unqualified predictions of events that did not take place, Jonah’s
announcement to the city of Nineveh being probably the most prominent one. But
there are other such predictions as well in which the predicted future simply did not
come to pass. What causes these turns of event? “Each text explicitly sights human
responses as the grounds for the deviation.” The people repented or prayed upon
hearing the prophetic word. “These passages indicate that the fulfillment of at least
some unqualified predictions were subject to the contingency of human response.
Conditions did not have to be stated explicitly to be operative.”
But unfulfilled predictions also pose a problem. When a prediction fails to come
to pass, this is considered a false prophecy, at least according to Deut 18:22 where it
states: “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to
pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken
it presumptuously.” (ESV) Hence, the fulfillment of a prediction was to be a test and a
hallmark of a prophet’s genuineness and truthfulness. However, even that seemingly
straightforward test of true prophecy doesn’t stand the Old Testament evidence, as “it
does not account for the many predictions from canonical (and thus true) prophets
that were not realized”, so Pratt. Hence, he concludes that “intervening historical
contingencies had a bearing on all three major types of prophetic predictions”.
One question to be raised in light of such prophetic contingencies is this: How
could the listeners be certain of the future or the truthfulness of the prophetic predictions if there was always an implicit conditionality in them? For an answer, Pratt
points to an Old Testament parameter to which God had bound himself. “To be
more specific, the prophets looked to Yahweh’s covenants to guide their expectations of what the future held.” In other words, the prophets always operated within
the framework of God’s covenants. We already discussed above the significance of
the covenants within the context of Biblical theology. The prophetic corpus explicitly
mentions the covenant with Noah (Isa 54:9), Abraham (e.g. Isa 41:8 51:2Jer 33:26
Mic 7:20), Moses (e.g. Isa 63:11, 12 Dan 9:11, 13 Mic 6:4; Mal 4:4) and David (e.g.