9 Climate Change and Eschatology
179
Isa 9:7; Jer 30:9; Hos 3:5 et al.). In principle, divine covenants were not thought
to be subject to revisions. On the contrary, they reflected the immutability of God’s
character. Hence, “Yahweh would never react to historical contingencies in ways that
transgressed his covenants.” The recipients of Old Testament prophecies normally
could rest assured that God would abide by his covenant promises, “but no particular
prophecy was completely free from the potential influence of intervening historical
contingencies. In this sense, those who heard and read the prophets faced a future
whose precise contours remained hidden.”
Pratt concludes that Old Testament prophets “did not speak of what had to be,
but of what might be”. Even the few predictions that guaranteed fulfillment did not
address their timing or manner of realization. “Old Testament prophets did not speak
of a fixed but potential future.” As a consequence, Pratt warns that “we should not
speculate as to how current events fit within a fixed future”. The future is certain only
to God. But even that statement may be questioned as God has repeatedly subjected
himself to the ways human beings responded to His warnings.
It appears, then, that on the basis of Pratt’s investigations, the conditionality or
contingency of Old Testament predictions has been well established. And that has
very practical consequences for what the future holds in store for us. “The way we
handle biblical predictions will greatly effect how they are fulfilled.”
One could, at this juncture, raise the question of whether these insights with regard
to the Old Testament prophecies also apply to the apocalyptic literature. Could it be
that apocalyptic predictions are of a different nature than prophetic prediction? And
could it not be that while prophetic predictions entail explicit or implicit conditionalities, apocalyptic texts ought to be read as unequivocal and final predictions without
any contingencies?
Stephen O’Leary has looked specifically at apocalyptic literature (1998) and identified a paradigm that explains not only the motivation which drove the authors of the
ancient apocalyptic texts but which also illuminates the impetus of modern end-time
scenarios propagated by today’s soothsayers. He describes the paradigm as follows:
“The eschatological understanding [of apocalypticism] can be seen in the age-old
lament that describes the decline of morals in society: young people no longer respect
their elders, while war and all kinds of immorality increase in direct correlation with
the growth of humanity’s knowledge and technical skills.” (p. 5) O’Leary goes on
to show that this apocalyptic paradigm assumes an ideal world at the beginning of
time, right after God had created the world, followed by a subsequent deterioration
of morals due to God’s non-interference, until a time when things get totally out of
hand so that God, at the very end of time, is prompted to once again intervene in order
set things straight and restore the old order. Interestingly, O’Leary offers a prominent
example for this pattern from a prominent secular author, Plato, who wrote:
It is from God’s act when He sets [the universe] in its order that it has received all the virtues
it possesses, while it is from its primal chaotic condition that all the wrongs and evils arise in
it—evils which it engenders in turn in the living creatures within it. When it is guided by the
Divine Pilot, it produces much good and but little evil in the creatures it raises and sustains.
When it must travel on without God, things go well enough in the years immediately after
He abandons control, but as time goes on and forgetfulness of God arises in it, the ancient
179
Isa 9:7; Jer 30:9; Hos 3:5 et al.). In principle, divine covenants were not thought
to be subject to revisions. On the contrary, they reflected the immutability of God’s
character. Hence, “Yahweh would never react to historical contingencies in ways that
transgressed his covenants.” The recipients of Old Testament prophecies normally
could rest assured that God would abide by his covenant promises, “but no particular
prophecy was completely free from the potential influence of intervening historical
contingencies. In this sense, those who heard and read the prophets faced a future
whose precise contours remained hidden.”
Pratt concludes that Old Testament prophets “did not speak of what had to be,
but of what might be”. Even the few predictions that guaranteed fulfillment did not
address their timing or manner of realization. “Old Testament prophets did not speak
of a fixed but potential future.” As a consequence, Pratt warns that “we should not
speculate as to how current events fit within a fixed future”. The future is certain only
to God. But even that statement may be questioned as God has repeatedly subjected
himself to the ways human beings responded to His warnings.
It appears, then, that on the basis of Pratt’s investigations, the conditionality or
contingency of Old Testament predictions has been well established. And that has
very practical consequences for what the future holds in store for us. “The way we
handle biblical predictions will greatly effect how they are fulfilled.”
One could, at this juncture, raise the question of whether these insights with regard
to the Old Testament prophecies also apply to the apocalyptic literature. Could it be
that apocalyptic predictions are of a different nature than prophetic prediction? And
could it not be that while prophetic predictions entail explicit or implicit conditionalities, apocalyptic texts ought to be read as unequivocal and final predictions without
any contingencies?
Stephen O’Leary has looked specifically at apocalyptic literature (1998) and identified a paradigm that explains not only the motivation which drove the authors of the
ancient apocalyptic texts but which also illuminates the impetus of modern end-time
scenarios propagated by today’s soothsayers. He describes the paradigm as follows:
“The eschatological understanding [of apocalypticism] can be seen in the age-old
lament that describes the decline of morals in society: young people no longer respect
their elders, while war and all kinds of immorality increase in direct correlation with
the growth of humanity’s knowledge and technical skills.” (p. 5) O’Leary goes on
to show that this apocalyptic paradigm assumes an ideal world at the beginning of
time, right after God had created the world, followed by a subsequent deterioration
of morals due to God’s non-interference, until a time when things get totally out of
hand so that God, at the very end of time, is prompted to once again intervene in order
set things straight and restore the old order. Interestingly, O’Leary offers a prominent
example for this pattern from a prominent secular author, Plato, who wrote:
It is from God’s act when He sets [the universe] in its order that it has received all the virtues
it possesses, while it is from its primal chaotic condition that all the wrongs and evils arise in
it—evils which it engenders in turn in the living creatures within it. When it is guided by the
Divine Pilot, it produces much good and but little evil in the creatures it raises and sustains.
When it must travel on without God, things go well enough in the years immediately after
He abandons control, but as time goes on and forgetfulness of God arises in it, the ancient