# Conditional Prophecy or Unconditional Prophecy?



## greenbaggins (Mar 26, 2016)

A very thorny question arises as to whether prophecies in the Old Testament are conditional or unconditional. Some of them appear to be one, and some appear to be the other. Problems arise whenever scholars seek to make one category that describes all prophecies. Hengstenberg, for instance, argues that all prophecies are unconditional. One wonders, then, how Hengstenberg deals with Jonah’s prophecy about Nineveh. Or, how does he deal with Jeremiah 18:7-10? I just finished reading Fairbairn’s chapter on this topic in his Interpretation of Prophecy. He has a taxonomy of prophecies that is well worth consideration.

Fairbairn has three categories of prophecies. Of these, one is completely unconditional, one completely conditional, and one that has aspects of both.

The first category he describes is one that has aspects of both. The prophecies of salvation that “disclose God’s purposes of grace to men” are unconditional with regard to their ultimate fulfillment. The only conditional elements have to do with “relations of place and time” (p. 63). The protoevangelion (Genesis 3:15) is an example of this type of prophecy. He writes, “[E]ven in this class of prophecies, as they do not proceed to their accomplishment in a lofty isolation from human interests and responsibilities, so the things belonging to them must be presented to men’s view as capable of being expedited or retarded by the line of behaviour they pursue; and while with God himself the end was seen from the beginning, and absolutely determined, yet particular issues might fitly enough appear to be suspended on the particular condition of the church or the world” (p. 64).

The second class of prophecies he mentions has to do with “kingdoms that stood in a rival or antagonistic position to the kingdom of God.” These prophecies “were mainly intended to assure the hearts of God’s people, that whatever earthly resources and glory might for the time belong to those kingdoms, all was destined to pass away; that their dominion, however arrogant and powerful, should come to an end” (p. 68). These prophecies were about the foreign kingdoms, but they were usually directed towards God’s people. These prophecies do not, as a general rule, address moral issues (see p. 69). Many, if not most, of the oracles against the nations, fall into this category (for examples, see Ezekiel 25-32).

The third class of prophecies is completely conditional. They are the prophecies about which Jeremiah 18:7-10 speaks. This class bears directly “upon men’s responsibilities” (p. 70). These are often directed towards the foreign nation. Jonah’s prophecy against Nineveh is a good example of this kind of prophecy. Jonah prophecies destruction, but Jonah obviously knows that this prophecy is conditional, because he did not want to give it to Nineveh, lest they repent, and then God would not bring upon them the destruction promised. Fairbairn comments on its seemingly unconditional form: “[T]he very absoluteness and precision of the form was the best adapted, it may be the only one actually fitted, to arouse slumbering consciences, and lead to serious repentance” (p. 73, emphasis original).

This taxonomy helps us to avoid three particular problems with Old Testament prophecy. One is that of open theism. God doesn’t change his mind. With the prophecies that have conditional elements, God immutably carries out His complex purposes, such that if the people change (of which outcome God already and immutably knows), then the outcome changes, humanly speaking. Secondly, this helps us to make sense of prophecies like that of Jonah that seemingly do not come to pass. As we know, one of the criteria for true prophets is that their prophecies must come to pass. Of course, liberals tend to use a very literalistic heremeneutic in order to “prove” that Old Testament prophecies are not fulfilled. This is another subject that Fairbairn addresses in this same chapter, incidentally. Thirdly, it also helps us to avoid the problems associated with extreme positions, like that of Hengstenberg, on the one hand, who argues that no prophecies are conditional; and other opposite positions, that argue that all prophecies are conditional. The problem with the latter position is that the criteria for prophecies coming true would be meaningless if the prophecies were always conditional. The prophet whose prophecy doesn’t come to pass could then conceivably always use the excuse, “Well, it was conditional.” I commend Fairbairn’s careful taxonomy. There might be tweaks that would be necessary to his categories (although I can’t think of any right off). But this is a helpful way of making sense of enormous swaths of Old Testament prophecy.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 26, 2016)

In "When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-preterism", Richard Pratt has a chapter in which he says that the way in which God fulfilled the restoration of Israel after the 70 years captivity was conditional on how the people responded to that judgment/chastisement. 

Because they did not respond well, Daniel 9 teaches that their restoration after 70 years captivity, for 70 weeks of years will only be partial, in the sense that e.g. they would be under Gentile rule.

I hope I haven't misrepresented what Dr Pratt said, but I thought it might be of interest.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 27, 2016)

If you don't mind speaking to the peanut gallery for a moment, how are you defining conditional? An if-than construction, if you meet the conditions of the prophecy (say, repent), than God will ...


----------



## MW (Mar 27, 2016)

If any prophecy were simply unconditional it would be a bare prediction and by-pass the historical and moral process by which God brings His purposes to pass in the lives of men. It would be miraculous to behold but you would be left asking what relevance it could possibly have in time and space. As noted, Gen. 3:15 has its historical contingencies, as with Cain and Abel, Noah and his sons, Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, etc. But then all prophecy branches out from this root, and partakes of the same contingent quality.

Attributing a contingent quality to prophecy does not make it doubtful. There is still an "absolute" as the word of the Lord accomplishing that which God is pleased to bring to pass in His own way, which is always higher than the ways of men.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 28, 2016)

jwithnell said:


> If you don't mind speaking to the peanut gallery for a moment, how are you defining conditional? An if-than construction, if you meet the conditions of the prophecy (say, repent), than God will ...



So, a conditional prophecy has human contingency. That is, it is dependent on human beings doing certain things (though, of course, God enables such people to do those things). An unconditional prophecy is not so dependent.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 28, 2016)

I've explained Jonah by saying he prophesied to an unrepentant people that they would be destroyed. It's _always_ true that unrepentant people someday will be judged and destroyed. Then the people repented. It's _always_ true as well that repentant people ultimately will be saved because God will relent from judgment. Nothing changed about God's word. God didn't change the prophesy. Only the status of Nineveh as repentant/unrepentant changed, and God was true to his character.

I forget where I got that way of phrasing it, but I think it is the same general thought as the "conditional" prophesy you mention, though maybe with a way of putting it that emphasizes the unchanging and true nature of God's word. It any case, it all sounds helpful. Thank you.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 28, 2016)

Thank you for the explanation, Rev. Keister.


----------

