 |
| 
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 7/3/2001 8:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | Mephi recently asked me why I was making such a big deal out of the discrepency between Gen. 15:13, in which God says that Abram’s descendants’ enslavement will last 400 years, and Exod. 12:40, which says that the slavery actually lasted 430 years. While I think this discrepancy poses a problem for those who interpret Gen. 15:13 as a foretelling of settled future events, the discrepancy doesn’t bother me at all because I believe it is a conditional prophecy.
We have no hard and fast criteria for determining whether or not a given prophecy is conditional. Generally, if it comes to pass as it was prophesied, we conclude it was unconditional; if it comes to pass other than it was prophesied, we conclude it was conditional. How convenient for us. But how unconvincing for skeptics.
In Isaiah, God uses prophecy to distinguish Godself from idols. God also uses prophecy to declare God’s own intentions for the future (i.e. God’s intention to redeem creation, establish the kingdom of God, vanquish evil, etc.). I can definitely see how prophecies regarding God’s actions are unconditional. But what about prophecies regarding creatures’ actions?
I think that given the purposes of prophecy, which usually have to do with threatening sinful individuals and nations with judgment, all prophecies that don’t involve God’s own intentions are conditioned upon the response of the prophecies’ recipients, unless they have misbehaved so badly that they passed the point of no return (e.g. Saul).
See for example, Jeremiah 18:7–10: “At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation…turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then i will shange my mind about the good I intended to do to it.”
In conclusion, here are some things to ponder: Where does the notion of “unconditional” prophecies come from anyway? What is the real purpose of prophecy, and is the notion of “unconditional” prophecies consistent with that purpose, or contrary to it?
Well, what do you think of my theory? pia
Edited by - pia†desideria on 07/03/2001 3:00:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/4/2001 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | That's a good question, Pia, it seems that prophecies are sometimes conditional:
2KI 20:1 This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.
2KI 20:2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed...
2KI 20:4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the Lord came to him: "Go back and tell Hezekiah ... I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you."
So (as you asked), how can we tell when a prophecy is conditional? Well, sometimes the Lord makes it clear:
PS 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
EZE 21:7 And when they ask you, "Why are you groaning?" you shall say, "Because of the news that is coming. Every heart will melt and every hand go limp; every spirit will become faint and every knee become as weak as water." "It is coming! It will surely take place, declares the Sovereign Lord."
And for the prophecy that the captivity of Judah would last 70 years, Daniel prayed fervently for its fulfilment:
DA 9:2-3 I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes.
So I would say that sometimes it is clear that a prophecy is unconditional (or conditional, e.g. Ps. 132:12), and sometimes it is not clear, in which case prayer is appropriate.
<>
I think one of the purposes of prophecy is to reveal God's power, his glory, in his ability to predict the future accurately:
ISA 43:9 Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, "It is true." "You are my witnesses ... so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he."
Thus I think that unconditional prophecy is consistent with this, to show that God's plans will not be frustrated:
ISA 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."
God bless you,
Lee
============================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
============================ | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 7/5/2001 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | I have believed for the past few years that the rule should be that all prophecies are conditional (whether conditions are given or not Jon 3) unless it is explicitly stated that it is unconditional (Ps 110:4 for example).
Does that sound like a good rule to use?
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/5/2001 4:43 PM (GMT -6) | | [I have believed for the past few years that the rule should be that all prophecies are conditional (whether conditions are given or not Jon 3) unless it is explicitly stated that it is unconditional.]
I'm not sure what the reference is (Jonah 3?) but Daniel certainly seemed to think that the "seventy years" of Judah's captivity could be extended through continued disobedience.
I would tend to say that we should seek the Lord's answer for each prophecy that is unclear, which may have been why Daniel was praying...
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 7/9/2001 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Thank you for the biblical examples, Lee. And yes, chance, I agree with your “rule.”
I’d still like to know what people think about this question: What is the real purpose of prophecy, and is the notion of “unconditional prophecy” consistent with that purpose, or contrary to it? In the openness debate, people often appeal to prophecy as evidence against the open view, but I wonder how consistent with the purpose of prophecy such appeals really are?
I think a case can be made that relational views (e.g. openness and process, which emphasize dynamic nature of reality) are actually better equipped to interpret prophecy than substance views (e.g. platonism, fatalism, augustinian providence, which emphasize the fixed nature of reality). That’s why I’m interested in this question.
I just read The Odyssey, and the gods’ many prophecies are all fulfilled exactly. So it seems there is nothing uniquely judeo-christian about a doctrine of God that claims God has EDF, based upon appeals to prophecy.
pia
p.s. Has anyone out there read Heschel on prophecy? I’d like to know what he has to say about this without reading him myself. 
Edited by - pia†desideria on 07/09/2001 12:10:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/11/2001 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What is the real purpose of prophecy?
I would expect that there are multiple purposes:
To encourage our faith in God: John 13:19.
To show the falseness of other gods (i.e. the doctrine may be there, but there is only one God who can actually carry out perfect prediction): Isa. 41:26-29.
As evidence of God's divinity:
ISA 41:23 tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.
To give us information that we need to know about the future: Dan. 2:30.
To serve people in the future, who will live in the time of these events, to assure them that this is part of God's plan: 1 Peter 1:12.
Doubtless there are other purposes, too, such as for shaping our theology, as you mention.
<>
Yes, I would say unconditional prophecy is consistent with these purposes mentioned (with the Scripture references), it is even critical, for without the unconditional aspect, prophecies tend to be viewed more as guesses, and God's power is not shown clearly.
God bless you,
Lee
P.S. I haven't read Heschel (I had not heard of him before, which shows how little I have read theologically or philosophically)
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/12/2001 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Pia-
I know what I think you mean when you say “all prophecies are conditional” (unless otherwise stated explicitly in the text). I’m still wondering a little about how best to word it.
Take Hezekiah for example. That God’s original word to Hez was not fulfilled is proof of the fact that it wasn’t strictly “unconditional.” But this doesn't mean God did not fully intend what he first announced or hadn’t yet made up his mind. Nor does it mean God's original word to Hez was designed to motivate him to pray so that God would do what he REALLY wanted to do in the first place (i.e., lengthen his life). This, I think, would be disingenuous of God.
I think God fully intended to bring about the end of Hez's life. But Hez obviously believed God changes his mind (at least about some things). His prayer assumes this. My point is that from the point of view of the TEXT, God doesn't offer Hez options, nor does he offer Hez one option in the form of an unconditional decree while keeping the other option to himself. In this sense God’s original word to Hez was not conditional. God simply decreed what he intended to do, and he intended to do what he decreed. That's it. It is Hez's prayer that “creates” the option, so to speak. His prayer prevails upon God (wonderful thought indeed!) and God changes his mind in response.
But if we say it’s conditional from the start. Then there is no genuine “change of mind” for God, is there? I think if we interpret “conditional” in the case of Hez to mean something like “God was equally committed to either option from the start,” we fail to appreciate the relational dynamics at work. It’s hard for me to see conditional options offered in the text. The first pronouncement looks pretty straightforward. I’d rather take the text at face value and say God’s change of mind is just that, a “change” of mind. It’s conditional in the sense that God is open to such a change (he sometimes isn’t, like with Saul), but it’s not “hermeneutically” conditional in the sense that the TEXT presents us with a picture of God facing two options to begin with and waiting for Hez to pray or not so that he can make up his mind. Is the difference I’m trying to describe real? See it?
If all prophecies/decrees/and the like are “conditional” (except where God explicitly says otherwise) in the strict sense of the word, then it wouldn’t be possible for God to “change” his mind, would it? For our response to the conditions is what makes up his mind! But if such prophecies/decrees/and the like are not conditional in SOME sense of the word, then it also wouldn’t be possible for God to “change” his mind, would it?
What I’m trying to say is that the conditional element is not to be found in what is prophesied or decreed at the time it’s decreed, but in the nature of God himself who interacts dynamically with us. At the time God first declares his intentions to Hez I don’t see his commitment to follow through as anything less than complete. Something “changes” later. But if it chages later, then it's not a straightforward conditional offer from the start.
I feel like I’ve totally confused mySELF!
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 7/12/2001 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I think I follow you. I guess I question the helpfullness of the distinction between so-called “conditional” prophecies and so-called “unconditional” prophecies, and I still wonder where it even comes from in the first place. You are correct that there is almost never any textual warrant for making such distinctions, esp. regarding “conditional” prophecies. The fact that these distinctions are made in retrospect also militates against their legitimacy.
Let’s get away from the confusing conditional/unconditional distinction. Here’s another way of thinking about it: even when God declares God’s intentions in no uncertain terms, rather than requiring resignation, God always includes an implicit R.S.V.P.—Repondez S’il Vous Plait!
Our response matters, but we have come to regard it as somehow more pious to passively resign ourselves to God’s will, denegrating and detaching ourselves in order to glorify oh-so-high-and-mighty Him. Yes, God is high and mighty, but God also has a heart. And given the examples of people after God’s own heart, like David, Moses, Abraham, etc., how can we have nothing to say in response when God shares this heart with us? But in spite of these biblical examples, if we believe that what God reveals in prophecy can only be things settled in stone, then what could we possibly have to say in response?
Hmm. It seems I have replaced the conventional and generally confusing conditional/unconditional distinction with a metaphorical heart/stone distinction. Not sure that clears anything up, but at least it’s more poetic.  Before anyone dismisses this as just poetic, I do think that the metaphors of heart and stone are metaphysically apt representations of open (relational, dynamic, kenotic, etc.) and classical (fixed, impassible, immutable, cryptic, etc.) interpretations of prophecy. pia
Edited by - pia†desideria on 07/12/2001 10:33:59 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/12/2001 8:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Let’s get away from the confusing conditional/unconditional distinction. Here’s another way of thinking about it: even when God declares God’s intentions in no uncertain terms, rather than requiring resignation, God always includes an implicit R.S.V.P.—Repondez S’il Vous Plait!
Exaclty! Let's go to him about everything.
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/15/2001 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
...even when God declares God’s intentions in no uncertain terms, rather than requiring resignation, God always includes an implicit R.S.V.P.
Yes, that is true, but I would still expect that uncondition prophecy is an important concept to keep, that is where God's power and glory is most clearly demonstrated.
God bless you,
Lee
quote:
ISA 41:26ff Who told of this from the beginning, so we could know, or beforehand, so we could say, 'He was right'? No one told of this, no one foretold it, no one heard any words from you. I was the first to tell Zion, 'Look, here they are!' I gave to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings.
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:14 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|