A Bible Prophecy professor once announced, “Tomorrow’s Bible prophecy class is canceled due to unforeseen reasons.” This funny anecdote is meant to beg the question: How does he know he needs to cancel the class if the reasons are unforeseen? That’s the whole point – he doesn’t. He just wants to cancel class.
Thankfully, Bible prophecy is about foreseen, rather than unforeseen, people, places, and events. Or is it? Are all prophecies “fore-telling” unconditional future events? Could some prophecies be “forth-telling” conditional future events? This series will seek to answer these and other pertinent questions about Biblical prophecy. I invite the reader to approach this topic with humility and open mindedness.
Two Eschatological End Points
Eschatology is an area of significant debate in Christian circles. Though there are several camps, most of them employ one or more hermeneutical devices from the following two camps: Preterism and Futurism. Let’s start with a brief introduction of these camps.
| Futurism | Preterism | |
| Timing | Believe that many biblical prophecies, especially those in Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse, are yet to be fulfilled in the future. | Believe that many biblical prophecies, especially those in the New Testament, were fulfilled in the past, particularly in 70AD. |
| Hermeneutic | Interpret most prophecies literally, anticipating future literal events like the tribulation, physical Second Coming (Gr. Parousia), and restoration of Israel. | Interpret some prophecies regarding the timing and nature of the tribulation literally, but others, such as the coming of Christ and the restoration of Israel, allegorically. |
| Second Coming | Expect a future, physical return of Jesus Christ to Earth, typically associated with the rapture and establishment of His earthly kingdom. | Believe that the Second Coming, especially as described in the Olivet Discourse, occurred spiritually in the First Century. |
| Israel’s Role | Typically Emphasize a future role of national Israel in God’s prophetic plan, expecting a restoration of Israel. | While they hold to a Judeo-centric interpretation of the Great Tribulation, they typically deny a future, distinct role for national Israel in prophecy. |
| Millennial Kingdom | Generally anticipate a literal, future thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth (the Millennium). | Most view Christ’s kingdom as a current spiritual reality rather than a future earthly kingdom. |
Support for Futurism
I personally lean towards the futurist understanding of many prophecies, especially the second coming of Jesus. In Luke 17:22-24, Jesus promised that His coming would be universal, visible, and tangible. The disciples were later promised that, in the same manner He ascended up into the heavens, Christ would also descend from the heavens (Acts 1:11, 1 Thess 4:16). This future event has been a bedrock of the Christian faith since its inception. I therefore reject the “allegorical hermeneutic” of full preterists who attempt to spiritualize prophecies that predict the coming of Christ, ridding them of their original meaning 1.
Given the futurity of the resurrection, the following categories of verses seemingly place the final judgment, great tribulation, and destruction of the antichrist in the future:
1. Passages Placing the Tribulation Immediately Before the Coming of Christ:
Some passages use language indicating that the Second Coming of Christ will occur “immediately” after the tribulation events. One such example is Mathew 24:29-30:
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven … then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven … and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
2. Passages Associating the Tribulation with the Antichrist:
Various biblical figures, including Paul’s “man of sin” (2 Thess 2:1-12), Daniel’s “little horn” (Dan 7:19-27), the beast of Revelation 13:1-8, and the desolating “prince who is to come” (Dan 9:26, cf Mt 24:15) are often interpreted to represent the antichrist, a central figure during a 3.5-year tribulation period (Dan 7:25, Rev 13:5). They share characteristics such as opposition to God, a covenant-breaking nature, and a role in the end-times deception and persecution. While interpretations may vary, they are commonly associated with the same eschatological figure who plays a significant role during this tribulation period.
3. Passages Connecting this Antichrist’s Destruction with the Second Coming:
Some passages associate the destruction of the antichrist with the Second Coming of Christ. For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 speaks of the antichrist’s destruction “by the appearance of [Christ’s] coming.” Therefore, if the Second Coming is in the future, the antichrist is destroyed in the future.
4. Passages Connecting the Second Coming to the Final Judgment and Resurrection:
Some passages associate the Second Coming directly with the Resurrection when all nations are resurrected and judged. Matthew 25:31-46 is one such passage. It says that “When the Son of Man comes in his glory … All the nations will be gathered before him”. The wicked will be told, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels … Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Another such passage is Matthew 13:40-43, which depicts the unrighteous being judged with fire and the righteous “shining like the sun” (i.e. being glorified) at the end of age harvest.
Support for Preterism
While the aforementioned categories of passages seem to clearly advocate futurism, there are categories of passages that directly challenge futurism. One such category consists of prophecies which, at face value, associate end-time events with Jesus’s listeners or contemporary generation. Below are four such examples:
1. Matthew 24:34 (Parallel in Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32):
“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
Preterists argue that the phrase “this generation” refers to the people living at the time of Jesus’ speaking, indicating that the events He described, including the destruction of the temple, would happen within the lifetime of His contemporaries. They see this as a clear time indicator.
2. Luke 21:20-25:
This passage describes a time of tribulation aimed at “this people” (i.e. the Jews); a “desolation” of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, which largely corresponds with events that occurred in 70 AD. Yet it refers to such events as “the days of vengeance,” when “all that is written may be fulfilled.” The cosmic signs and coming of Jesus (v25) were to follow “immediately” after this desolation according to Matthew’s account (Mt 24:29).
3. Matthew 16:28:
“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
While the “coming” in this passage could have an immediate reference to the Transfiguration, where Jesus takes some disciples up a mountain to show them a foretaste of His glory (17:1-9, cf 2 Pet 1:16-18), it is not fully satisfied by that event. The coming of Christ has not happened yet, as it will be a literal physical return analogous to His literal physical ascension (Acts 1:11).
4. Matthew 10:23:
“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
In this verse, Jesus is addressing his disciples and telling them that they will not have completed their mission of going through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man (referring to Himself) comes.
Another category consists of passages reflecting the sense of urgency and imminence that the early Christian communities had regarding the return of Christ and the culmination of end-time events. Such passages use terms such as “soon,” “quickly,” “at hand,” or “last hour.” Here are several:
1. 1 John 2:18: “… it is the last hour …”
2. Romans 13:11-12: “… the hour has come … the day is at hand.”
3. Philippians 4:5: “… The Lord is at hand.”
4. James 5:8-9: “… for the coming of the Lord is at hand“
5. 1 Peter 4:7: “The end of all things is at hand…”
6. Revelation 1:3: “… for the time is near.”
7. Revelation 22:12: “Behold, I am coming soon …”
8. John 12:31: “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.”
Interpreting these categories literally leaves little room for a futuristic understanding of Christ’s intentions to return. Yet He didn’t return! What’s going on here? Is prophecy unreliable?
Prophecy and Historical Contingency
One source of confusion in these discussions stems from a failure to distinguish between different kinds of prophetic predictions. To bring clarity to this topic, Richard L. Pratt, Jr., 2 in his inaugural address presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, categorized prophecies into three types: 1) prophecies qualified by conditions, 2) prophecies qualified by assurances, and 3) prophecies without qualifications. The role of historical contingencies varies depending on the type of prediction. In the next several sections, I will review Pratt’s categories in an attempt to bridge the gap between futurism and preterism.
Prophecies Qualified by Conditions
First, some prophecies were explicitly conditional, meaning they had “if … then” verbiage, and their fulfillment depended on the responses of the audience. Some were bi-polar, presenting both the negative and positive outcomes. Some were uni-polar, presenting only one of the two conditions (either positive or negative), and implying the other.
Isaiah 1:19-20 presents a bi-polar conditional prophecy, offering two options: obedience leading to blessings or rebellion leading to harm. Jeremiah 7:5-7 presents a uni-polar condition — focusing on obedience as the pathway to blessings and implicitly suggesting that disobedience would result in negative outcomes.
Pratt emphasizes that when prophets spoke of future events, they didn’t always describe what would happen but rather what might happen. Their prophecies, in these cases, were intended to motivate the audience to make choices that would shape their future. This aspect of Old Testament prophecy, emphasizing potential outcomes, is central to understanding how prophecies were fulfilled.
Prophecies Qualified by Assurances
Moving to the other end of the spectrum in Old Testament prophecy, we find predictions that are qualified by assurances. In these cases, prophets provided guarantees or affirmations of specific outcomes. There are three notable categories of such assurances:
1. Prophetic Opposition to Intercession: Jeremiah, on multiple occasions, opposed those who hoped for Jerusalem’s deliverance from Babylonian rule by revealing that Yahweh forbade intercession for the city. Even though Jeremiah predicted exile and judgment for Jerusalem, God explicitly instructed that no one should pray on behalf of the people. He made it clear that He would not listen to their pleas, reinforcing the certainty of His judgment (Jeremiah 7:15-16, 11:11-14, 14:10-12, 15:1).
2. Declarations of Irreversibility: Another type of assurance involved declarations that Yahweh’s intentions would not be reversed. In these passages, Yahweh affirmed that He would not “turn back” or “repent” from His planned course of action. For example, in Amos, the repetitive formula “I will not turn back” expressed Yahweh’s determination to carry out the sentences of His judgments against various nations. This phrase indicated that there would be no change in His disposition or actions. Similar assurances can be found in the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, emphasizing God’s unwavering commitment to His declared judgments (Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6; Isa 45:23; Jer 23:20, 30:24, 4:28; Ezek 24:14).
3. Divine Oaths: A third type of confirmation involves divine oaths, where Yahweh solemnly affirms the certainty of an event, using expressions like “As Yahweh lives…” or “As I live…”, or confirming it with strong covenantal rituals, or likening it to another enduring decree. These serve as strong confirmations of the predicted outcomes. The most popular divine oaths are those related to the political, land, and seed promises given to the patriarchs and nation of Israel. In Genesis 15:18, God made a covenant with Abraham, promising to give his descendants the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River. This was firmly sealed by His passing through the halves of sacrificed animals, a Near Eastern act that signified the seriousness of the covenant and the curses invoked upon the covenant maker if He were to break the covenant. God confirmed this Abrahamic oath with Isaac in Genesis 26:3-4, reaffirming the promise of the land and numerous descendants. He then appeared to Jacob in a dream in Genesis 28:13-15, reaffirming the oath once again, promising to give Jacob’s descendants the land on which he lay. This oath becomes a perpetual promise to the nation of Israel through the prophets. Through Jeremiah, God restates it with the same level of commitment as His oath to uphold the cosmos:
This is what the Lord says, He who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will Israel ever cease being a nation before me. This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the Lord.” (Jer 31:35-37, NIV)
Promise Theology advocate, Walt Kaiser Jr., sees such oaths as foundational to the promise-plan of God to bless all the “families of the earth” (Gen 12:3) via the Gospel through the nation of Israel:
“The “story” the early church told was the story of the promise-plan of God and the line of the “seed” that would end in David’s final son, Jesus. This was the gospel they proclaimed.” 3
He also sees these oaths as foundational to premillennialism:
“[The millennium] is more precisely the time when God finishes in space and time what he promised historically to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David and his line.” 4
Spurgeon agrees:
“I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews … But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this. I imagine that you cannot read the Bible without seeing clearly that there is to be an actual restoration of the Children of Israel” 5
As other examples of divine oaths, Amos used them to confirm the destruction of the northern kingdom (Amos 4:2; 6:8; 8:7). Isaiah and Jeremiah similarly announced that Yahweh had sworn to bring about the downfall of Israel’s enemies. Jeremiah used this form to declare that the majority of Jews sojourning in Egypt would meet their end there (Jer 44:26). Ezekiel also employed divine oaths to confirm judgments, such as Jerusalem’s destruction (Ezk 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 20:3, 31, 33; 33:27).
Predictions qualified by assurances convey two key aspects of Old Testament prophecy. First, they emphasize that certain predicted events were inevitable and unalterable. Secondly, they suggest that not all prophecies shared the same level of certainty. If some prophecies were reinforced with divine oaths, it implies that those without such oaths are not quite as reinforced. This is a good segue into Pratt’s next category.
Prophecies Without Qualifications
Next, Pratt gives attention to a third category of passages: predictions without qualifications. This category of Old Testament prophecies consists of predictions that are made without any expressed conditions or assurances. However, these unqualified predictions are not immune to historical contingencies, as evidenced by numerous examples in the Old Testament where such predictions did not come to pass.
- Jonah proclaimed that Nineveh would be overturned in forty days, but God spared the city due to the people’s repentance (Jonah 3:4, 10).
- When Hezekiah, the king of Judah, fell seriously ill and was initially told by the prophet Isaiah that he would not recover, his fervent prayers led to a 15-year extension of his life (2 Kgs 20:1-4).
- After King Ahab humbled himself, God responded to his repentance, stating to Elijah that He will not bring the prophesied disaster during Ahab’s lifetime but instead upon his house in his son’s days (1 Kings 21:27-29).
- Shemaiah declared that Rehoboam would face the consequences of his actions, but the attack against Judah was mitigated because of their humility (2 Chr 12:5, 6, 7-8).
- Huldah announced disaster for Jerusalem, but it was postponed following Josiah’s repentance (2 Kgs 22:16, 18-20).
- Micah predicted the destruction of Zion, but Sennacherib’s invasion was thwarted (Mic 3:12; Jer 26:18; 2 Kgs 19:20-35).
- Because of their constant turning to Baal, God promised Israel “I will no longer save you”, but this verdict was reversed when they cried out to him, got rid of their idols, and He could no longer bear their misery (Judges 10:10-16)
- God prophesied that Israel’s disobedience would result in a reversal of the Exodus, including exile in Egypt (Deut 28:68, Hos 8:13, 9:1-17), but He ended up only sending them to Assyria and then to Babylon.
In each of these instances, human responses played a pivotal role in delaying or altering the predicted outcomes. While these passages do not explicitly state conditions, they imply that the fulfillment of these unqualified predictions was contingent on human reactions.
What about Deuteronomy 18:22?
This raises a crucial question: How should we reconcile the presence of implicit conditions in unqualified predictions with the Mosaic criterion for false prophets in Deuteronomy 18:22? This verse states that if a prophet’s prediction does not come to pass, it is not a message from Yahweh, and the prophet has spoken presumptuously. Some scholars interpret this as a strict test, marking failed predictions as a sign of false prophets. However, an alternative perspective suggests that Moses and his audience understood that unqualified predictions carried implied conditions. Moses’ test in Deuteronomy 18:22 instructed Israel to expect a prediction from a true prophet to come true unless significant intervening contingencies disrupted it. In this view, the test did not require explicit conditions to be stated when predictions were made. Instead, it assumed that Israelites knew that certain predictions were contingent on various factors.
This interpretation may explain why many Old Testament passages highlight historical contingencies that interrupted the fulfillment of predictions. It indicates that the Mosaic criterion for false prophets allowed for the acknowledgment of significant contingencies that could affect the outcome of a prophecy. Israelites could accept unfulfilled predictions as originating from Yahweh if they could point to substantial intervening factors.
The Potter’s Wheel
Some argue that these contingencies only affected a specific class of predictions, typically those with imminent fulfillment and dependent on the actions or responses of the prophet’s contemporaries. However, an answer to this question can be found in Jeremiah 18:1-12, where Jeremiah’s experience at the potter’s house serves as a backdrop.
In this passage, Jeremiah witnesses a symbolic event at the potter’s house, where a potter works with clay that can be reshaped. Yahweh uses this analogy to convey that Israel, like clay in the hands of a potter, can be dealt with as He pleases (Jer 18:1-6). He emphasizes that this principle applies universally by stating that if He declares judgment on any nation or kingdom but that nation repents, He may relent from the intended judgment. Conversely, if He declares blessings on a nation but it turns to evil, He may relent from the promised good (Jer 18:7-10).
Several factors in this passage support its categorical nature. It begins with general temporal references (“at some time” and “at some other time”), emphasizing that these principles apply universally. The phrase “any nation or kingdom” further underscores the comprehensive scope of the policy. Additionally, the passage encompasses the two major types of prophetic predictions: judgment and salvation.
Jeremiah 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions related to judgment and deliverance were subject to implicit conditions. The potential for sincere repentance could alter the outcome of any unqualified prophecy of judgment, while flagrant disobedience could negate any unqualified prophecy of prosperity.
The view that limits conditionality to prophecies with imminent, contemporary fulfillment lacks substantial biblical support and tends to rely on theological biases related to certain prophecy contents, such as the promise of Messiah, final judgment, or modern Israel’s claims to Canaan. Nevertheless, Jeremiah 18:1-12 provides a categorical perspective that doesn’t limit conditionality by time frame or subject matter. Instead, it suggests that historical contingencies must always be considered as potential factors in the fulfillment of unqualified predictions.
Relationship of Prophecy to Covenant
Does this mean that the future was completely uncertain? No! Prophets and their listeners in the Old Testament did not operate in a state of complete uncertainty regarding the future, despite the potential impact of human responses on the course of events. Their confidence was anchored in the understanding that Yahweh had bound Himself to specific promises through covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. Knowing that Yahweh would not violate these covenants, the prophets had a basis for their expectations of the future. For example, the promise of cosmic stability after the Flood (Noah’s covenant), the assurance of the land of Canaan for Abraham’s descendants, and the establishment of David’s kingdom were all seen as immutable commitments on Yahweh’s part.
However, these expectations didn’t address every detail. Questions like which specific curses or blessings would befall the people, when they would occur, and how they would manifest were not always answered by the covenants themselves. Questions regarding the identity of the prophesied Messiah and the timing of His coming salvation were also left unanswered. Peter highlights this degree of uncertainty in the Old Testament prophets:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (1Pe 1:10-11 ESV)
While variations in prophetic speech, such as explicit conditional predictions regarding the arrival of a moment of decision, or assurance-based predictions, provided some degree of specificity to Yahweh’s actions within the covenant framework, the exact nature and timing of those responses remained within His control. The specific details were often left unaddressed for a time, only to be further revealed through progressive revelation and modified because of the changing historical context.
Predictions without qualifications presented an even different set of expectations. When intervening contingencies occurred, the outcome was less certain. Even if people repented and sought Yahweh’s favor, there was no guarantee of a particular result. For example, when Jonah predicted the destruction of Nineveh in forty days, the king of Nineveh called for repentance, saying “Who knows? God may turn and relent” (Jonah 3:9). A similar sentiment was conveyed by the people when Joel prophesied the devastation of Judah by locusts (Joel 2:14). Uncertainty was also evident when Nathan foretold the death of Bathsheba’s first child, and David hoped, “Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?” (2 Samuel 12:22). Hopeful ignorance about the future was a common reaction in these situations.
As another example, Daniel 9 highlights the uncertainty surrounding unqualified predictions of blessing. The Mosaic covenant clearly stated that rebellion would lead to exile and repentance to restoration( Deut 28-30). Jeremiah had specified a restoration in seventy years (Jer 25:11-12). However, when Daniel contemplated this prophecy, he found that Israel had not responded as expected during their exile, leading to prophetic uncertainty. Rather than passively waiting for the seventy years to pass, He cried out for mercy, asking God to fulfill Jeremiah’s prediction (Dan 9:2-3). In response, Yahweh sent the angel Gabriel to tell Daniel that Jeremiah’s “seventy years” had been extended to “seventy weeks of years” or “seven times seventy years” (Dan 9:24). This multiplication of the exile duration reflected the Mosaic covenant’s principle that continuing sin would lead to successive and increasing punishments.
This example illustrates that intervening historical contingencies can introduce delays, modifications, and therefore uncertainty regarding unqualified predictions of blessing. While the general framework of the covenant was reliable, the specifics of individual prophecies could remain uncertain until the moment Yahweh acted.
The Usefulness of Pratt’s Findings
So how do we respond to Pratt’s observations? Certainly they call for a shift in the hermeneutical approach to biblical prophecy. Rather than seeing all unqualified prophecies as “foretellings” of a fixed future, we can understand some to be “forth-tellings” of the imminent future that will be realized by the listeners if they meet certain implied conditions. A delay in the satisfaction of such conditions could mean a delay in fulfillment, as well as a circumstantially induced change to the nature of the fulfillment. Herman Ridderbos comes very close to Pratt’s approach, claiming that prophecies refer to “things that appear to be centuries apart in the fulfillment [and] are sometimes comprehended by Jesus’ prophecy in the same temporal frame and within the same local framework.” Yet he fails to apply Pratt’s genius idea of contingency, and instead attributes this phenomenon to the prophets’ “urgent insistence on the certainty of the things to come”, their future “perspective [that] is lacking”, and their inability to “distinguish all phases in God’s coming” 6. While this approach has some appeal, and improves upon a wreckless allegorical hermeneutic, it confines the gift of prophecy to human abilities and results in prophecies that cannot be understood. Pratt’s approach is stronger, as it advocates that every prophecy means exactly what it says, when it says, and where it says.
Click HERE to go to Part 2 of this series …
Click the SUBSCRIBE button at the bottom to get emails when new articles publish!
Click the link to our FACEBOOK Group at the bottom. Come and join the conversation!
End Notes:
- My reasons can be found in my article: “Thoughts on the Allegorical Hermeneutic of Full Preterists”.
https://answersinthemiddle.com/2023/08/09/thoughts-about-the-covenant-hermeneutic-of-kim-burgess/ ↩︎ - Richard L. Pratt, Jr. Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions: An Inaugural Address Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary. 23 November 1993. Found at: https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/http%3A%5E%5Ethirdmill.org%5Earticles%5Eric_pratt%5ETH.Pratt.Historical_Contingencies.html/at/Historical+Contingencies+and+Biblical+Predictions ↩︎
- Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament: A Guide for the Church. ↩︎
- Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “WHAT’S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT PRE-MILLENNIALISM?”. Found at: http://www.walterckaiserjr.com/Israel%20and%20pre-millennialism.html ↩︎
- Charles H. Spurgeon and the Nation of Israel: A Non-Dispensational Perspective on a Literal National Restoration. by Dennis M. Swanson, Head Librarian and Director of Israel Studies, The Master’s Seminary Sun Valley, California. 2000. “The Church of Christ,” NPSP 1:213-14. http://www.romans45.org/spurgeon/misc/eschat2.htm ↩︎
- Ridderbos, Herman. The Coming of the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962. 523-25 ↩︎
The Middle Ground 