Historical Contingencies and Prophecy

Richard Pratt introduces an interesting topic in prophetical studies.  The idea may actually be unsettling to some. Pratt examines historical contingencies and their relationship to biblical prophecy.  In his study, Pratt identifies three types of OT prophecy:

1. Predictions Qualified by Conditions (e.g. Isa 1:19-20; Jer 22:4-5)
2. Predictions Qualified by Assurances (e.g. Jer 7:15-16; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6)
3. Predictions Without Qualifications (e.g. Jonah 3:4, 10; 2 Chron 12:5-8)

He works through each type and demonstrates the various historical contingencies involved. The predictions under type one are clearly given in the form of a protasis/apodasis (if/then – but no brace or shorthand syntax, programmers).  Type two are predicated on God’s actions and faithfulness. This type of prophecy includes inevitable events, such as the judgment of certain nations and the victory of YHWH. Finally, the events predicted within type three had no accompanying qualifications and in the examples I have provided, the predicted events never actually occurred.  Pratt opens Jer 18:7-10 to show how an implicit set of qualifications may have been involved.  Pratt then summarizes his findings.

As we have seen, with rare exception, OT 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. Therefore, prophetic predictions were not designed to be buidling blocks of a futuristic scheme into which current events fit in particular ways. To approach biblical prophecies in this manner is to misuse them. (195)

Pratt then puts his observation into action with an interesting hermeneutical suggestion.

Our study suggests that we need a shift in hermeneutical orientation toward biblical prophecy.  Rather than involving ourselves in ceaseless debates over this or that eschatological scheme and how current history relates to it, we should approach biblical prophecies in ways that accord more with the role of intervening historical contingencies. (195)

This hermeneutical shift leads Pratt to two conclusions.  First, we should not look to biblical prophecy as statements about what must happen, but as announcements of what might be coming.  But second, we should not let the first point lead us to never contemplate our future.  But rather than speculating about the future or look to how current events might fit into this or that prophecy, we should “explore how actions today affect the future.” (196)  Pratt thinks this approach offers a different vector into passages such as Mark 9:1 “Some standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”  Second Peter 3:9 God (“is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but to come to repentance”) may also explain Peter’s exhortation in 2 Pet 3:11-12.

I am uncertain as to how one might proceed to classify a prediction as either type two or type three. That may also be the greatest sticking point in the covenantal/dispensational debates. Regardless, Pratt’s proposal is certainly worth consideration.

–

Richard L. Pratt, Jr. “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions” in The Way of Wisdom. Packer and Soderlund, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).

Camden Bucey is the president of Reformed Forum. He graduated with an MDiv in 2011 and is currently a PhD student at Westminster Theological Seminary. Camden is a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a licentiate of the presbytery of Philadelphia. You can follow Camden on Twitter at @camdenbucey. This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 at 5:00 am and is filed under Headline, Prophets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.