Two Types of Prophecy in Bible: Absolute and Contingent

The prophets of old often spoke of things that were sure to happen in the future in the language of the past. "Since they saw in prophetic vision that which was to occur in the future, they spoke about it in the past tense and testified firmly that it had happened, to teach the certainty of his [God's] words -- may he be blessed -- and his positive promise that can never change and his beneficent message that will not be altered." (Isaac ben Yedaiah) “This is called the ‘prophetic perfect.’ These verbs are often translated in the past tense, as in, for example, Isaiah 53:2-9.” (Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy B. Zuck) I am not equipped to study the matter of whether all prophecies in the prophetic perfect tense are certain or not, but these seem absolute.

Examples of "Prophetic Perfect" Temse from The Christian’s Hope: The Anchor of the Soul by John W. Schoenheit

Genesis 6:18. In Genesis 6, God told Noah to build the ark. After telling him how to build it, the Hebrew text reads that God said, “And you have come into the ark.” The ark was not even built at that time, and when it was built God told Noah, “Go into the ark” (Gen. 7:1). The prophetic perfect in Genesis 6:18 makes it clear that Noah would absolutely enter the ark. Most English versions, not wanting to confuse the reader, read something like, “And you will enter the ark.” Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) reads, “and thou hast come in unto the ark.”

Genesis 15:18. The Hebrew text reads, “To your descendants I have given this land.” This promise was made to Abraham before he even had any descendants to give the land to. Nevertheless, God states His promise in the past tense to emphasize the certainty of the event. The KJV, ARV, YLT, and NASB all have the past tense in their versions.

Genesis 18:26. Abraham was bargaining with God to save Sodom. God told Abraham that if fifty righteous people could be found in the city, He would [surely] spare it. To make His point clear, God used the prophetic perfect. He literally said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous people, I have spared the whole place.” The YLT accurately reflects the use of the past tense in the Hebrew text. The force of the prophetic perfect as a promise can be seen in the context.... [This did not negate the intercession and reduction of the required number of righteousness.]

Genesis 41:30. Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream and foretold that there would be seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. When mentioning the seven years of famine, he speaks of them in the perfect tense, using the prophetic perfect for emphasis. Literally, Joseph said, “And there have arisen seven years of famine.” To avoid confusing the reader, almost every English version says that the famine “will arise.” The YLT accurately reflects the past tense in the Hebrew text. It is obvious from the context that the seven years of plenty are yet to come and that the famine will follow the years of plenty. But, in the text, it sounds like the famine has already occurred. The coupling of the past and future in the context lets the reader know that the prophetic perfect idiom is being used and emphasizes the fact that there absolutely will be a famine.

Numbers 21:34. When Israel was coming out of the wilderness, Og, the king of Bashan, and his army came out to fight them. God wanted to assure Moses that Israel would win the battle, so He said, “Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you” (NIV). Interestingly, almost every English version deviates from the usual practice and translates the verb in the literal past tense instead of translating it in the future tense. Thus, even in the NIV, it seems that the battle is over even though it had not yet been fought.

Numbers 24:17. The prophecy of the coming Messiah, given by the prophet Balaam, is placed in the prophetic perfect for emphasis. Although it would be more than 1,400 years before the Messiah would come, the Hebrew text has, “A star has come forth out of Jacob and a scepter has arisen out of Israel.” English readers might be confused by the perfect tense, so the translators use the future tense in most English versions. The YLT accurately reflects the use of the past tense in the Hebrew text.

1 Samuel 2:31. This verse is a prophetic announcement of what will occur to Eli, the High Priest. The Hebrew text is in the past tense and literally reads, “Lo, the days are coming, and I have cut off your arm [i.e., “your strength”].” Almost all modern versions translate this verse in the future tense so it makes sense to the modern reader. The NIV reads, “The time is coming when I will cut short your strength.” The YLT follows the Hebrew text.

1 Samuel 10:2. The Hebrew text is in the past tense and says, “you have found two men.” Most modern versions convert the past to the future so the reader is not confused. The NIV reads, “When you [Saul] leave me [Samuel] today, you will meet two men near Rachel’s tomb.” The YLT follows the Hebrew text. {God does inspire His people to action and orchestrates.]

Job 19:27. This verse contains one of the great statements of hope in the Bible. Job knew that sometime after he died, he would be resurrected to life and be with the Messiah. The Hebrew text makes this future resurrection certain by portraying it as a past event. The NASB is similar to most English versions and reads, “Whom I myself shall behold, and whom my eyes shall see.” In the Hebrew text, the first verb is imperfect (i.e., incomplete or future) but the second verb is in the past tense and literally reads, “My eyes have seen him [the Redeemer].” Thus, the Hebrew text couples the literal future with the prophetic perfect idiom making Job’s declaration clear. He knew that his resurrection was future, but he was so confident of it that he spoke of it as being a past event. Most English versions (the YLT is an exception) have both verbs in the future so the reader will not be confused.

Psalm 45:7. Psalm 45 is known to refer to the coming Messiah. Verse 7 refers to the Messiah’s love of righteousness and hatred of wickedness. In the Hebrew text, “love” is in the perfect (past) while “hate” is in the imperfect (not yet completed). The Hebrew would more naturally read, “You have loved righteousness, and hate wickedness.” This is a good example of what Gesenius said when he noted that the prophetic perfect and imperfect are often coupled together and placed in parallel. It is noteworthy that the prophetic perfect places the emphasis on love, not on hatred. As much as it is important to mete out justice to enemies, it is essential for a ruler to love righteousness. The reader is assured of Christ’s love of righteousness because it was put in the prophetic perfect 1,000 years before he was born. Interestingly, the modern versions vary in their handling of the verse. The NASB and the ASV put both verbs in the past, while the NIV and the RSV put them both in the present. The YLT closely follows the Hebrew text by putting “love” in the past and “hate” in the present.

Proverbs 11:7 and 21. These verses offer an interesting contrast between the futures of the unjust and the just. In verse 7, we read, “The hope of the unjust man has perished.” The use of the past tense in the Hebrew text emphasizes the certainty of the future destruction of the wicked person. In verse 21, concerning the righteous man, we read, “the seed of the just has escaped.” Again, the use of the past tense emphasizes the certainty of the future salvation of the righteous person. Because the actual judgment of the righteous and the wicked is still future, most modern versions read that the Hope of the wicked will perish and that the seed of the just will escape. God will mete out justice for both the righteous and the wicked. The use of the idiom absolutely emphasizes that God’s coming Judgment is certain to occur and warns people to be careful how they live.

Isaiah 9:6. This verse speaks of the coming Messiah. To mark the certainty of the Messiah’s future coming, the past tense is used in the Hebrew text. Although Isaiah wrote more than 700 years before the birth of Christ, the Hebrew text reads, “To us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, and the government has been on his shoulders, and he has been called Wonderful, Counselor…”

[Added. Isaiah 53:1-9--> Who hath given credence to that which we heard? And the arm of Jehovah, on whom hath it been revealed? Yea, he cometh up as a tender plant before Him, and as a root out of a dry land, He hath no form, nor honour, when we observe him, nor appearance, when we desire him. He is despised, and left of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with sickness, and as one hiding the face from us, He is despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, and our pains -- he hath carried them, and we -- we have esteemed him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted. And he is pierced for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace [is] on him, and by his bruise there is healing to us. All of us like sheep have wandered, each to his own way we have turned, and Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, the punishment of us all. It hath been exacted, and he hath answered, and he openeth not his mouth, as a lamb to the slaughter he is brought, and as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, And he openeth not his mouth. By restraint and by judgment he hath been taken, and of his generation who doth meditate, that he hath been cut off from the land of the living? By the transgression of My people he is plagued, and it appointeth with the wicked his grave, and with the rich [are] his high places, because he hath done no violence, nor [is] deceit in his mouth." (YLT)]

There are absolute prophecies that are not up for discussion in God's mind. These are the big events like the first and second coming, as well as the firstborn being head of house and the change to the sons of Aaron and also the change to Gentile believers as the head of the church. But in stark contrast, God allows free will in things that pertain to temporal, as well as eternal salvation of individuals. Thus, when God speaks in these matters, it is a contingent prophecy. "Prophecy typically consists of exhortation (forth-telling) and prediction (foretelling). Prophets confronted the people with their sin and exhorted them to change their ways. Then they offered predictions of what judgment might befall the people if they didn’t repent. Yet God didn’t desire to carry out the predicted judgment—after all, He takes no delight in the death of sinners (Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11). God explains it clearly in Jeremiah 18:7–8: 'If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.' The LORD may pronounce judgment, but if people repent, He will alter His plan and show mercy… Failure to follow through on a threat doesn’t mean God is unreliable—it means He is merciful." (Do Prophecies Sometimes Fail?, Sept. 11, 2018 by Robert B. Chisholm)

Some argue that it is ALL within God's foreknowledge, but I believe that it supports open theism. For example: "Ezekiel’s prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar was not fulfilled in the manner predicted by the prophet. This is demonstrated from extra-biblical literature, supported by archaeological evidence, and acknowledged by Ezekiel himself in a later prophecy. As a result, it is argued that the passage supports a world-view in which God is sometimes willing to adjust his plan from what he initially declared. This supports a relational view over the conventional deterministic view of divine foreknowledge, and it helps ease the tension between the test of a true prophet and a true prophet whose prediction is not fully realised." (Prediction and foreknowledge in Ezekiel's Prophecy Against Tyre by Kris J. Udd) Jonah knew about this aspect of Yahweh and worried too much about appearance. That is why he ran in the other direction when He asked him to go to Nineveh with a message of pending doom. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham's intercession was effective is changing the requirement, but in the end, the city was not spared. Yet a man and his children were delivered. Lot, defended the angels who came to destroy his city. Therefore, he and his family escaped, except his wife who looked back. “By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.” (Heb 11:31)

In in his article, "An Examination of Justin Martyr on Foreknowledge," Doug Gibson contends that Justin Martyr (100-165) was an open theist, although the term had not been coined. He was a second century "philosopher who searched for the truth studying under the Platonists, Stoics, Peripatetics, Theoretics, and Pythagoreans but became a Christian. ... Justin explained Christianity to the Roman Emperor and his adopted son Marcus Aurelius in a work titled The First Apology.... Justin writes against fatalism and determinism." ( "Dead Hero's Don't Save" website) Gibson explains:

“In Justin’s mind there is a distinction between absolute prophecy and contingent prophecy. If there are things God absolutely knows will take place, Justin’s statement suggests that there are other future events that God is not certain about. Thus, Justin implies that the things that God regards as contingent or still changeable in the future are not predicted as if already they had taken place. And he tells the reader, that such utterances as those which fall under absolute knowledge must be received in this fashion. But at no point in this discourse does he ascribe to platonic divine timelessness. Again, if Justin was platonic and wished to explain past tense-future prophecy, he had a great opportunity to tell the emperor that God’s aseity and timelessness accounts for such prophecies. But this, Justin did not do. He writes like an open theist. It is here, in the next chapter (53) we are given his classic defense of free moral agency, or freewill." (Gibson) He quotes Justin supporting the claim:

“CHAPTER XLIII- RESPONSIBILITY ASSERTED. But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made." (The First Apology by Justin Martyr, emphasis by Doug Gibson)

Gibson explains: "... Justin begins by demonstrating that God has appointed punishments for disobedience and good rewards for obedience. This is how he establishes the future is open. He argues that for God to be just and a rewarder, law is justified because we have freewill and we have to have power to transition from once course of future to another. After his explanation of how genuine free choices are consistent with moral law, he says, 'But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards'. By inevitable fate he means a course of future that becomes certain and absolute. Its outcome ceases to be contingent once the cause (creaturely choice) has set the effects in motion. Therefore, in the case where prophecy hinges on either obedience or disobedience, Justin tells us that a course of events becomes fate but only after a choice has been made. To reiterate, prophecies that are contingent on creaturely choice are different from divinations that proceed upon the Stoic and pagan idea of a fixed or settled future. Rewards and punishments are contingent on creaturely freedom. There is no evidence here that Justin held what was to become the traditional view..."

Gibson continues, "In the following paragraphs in chapter 54 [of his book], Justin contrasts Moses with Plato and the rest of the philosophers." He adds, "This is very telling, especially in the midst of his discourse on future fulfillment of prophecy. Anything Plato ever got right, he did because he is indebted to the Hebrew prophets. But Justin gives a summary of his argument:

'So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they came about by a fatal necessity; but God foreknowing all that shall be done by all men [by natural inclination], and it being His decree that the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value, He foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that He will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that He cares and provides for men.'” ("An Examination of Justin Martyr on Foreknowledge," Doug Gibson)

So rather than determinist outlook by everything being foreordained or even an outlook of complete foreknowledge of God as to our futures, Justin believed that our futures are open, encouraging us by the spirit of prophecy to choose Jesus and live.

Excerpt from Conditionalism: A Cornerstone of Adventist Doctrine by Tim Crosby

"The Scriptures teach that all of the prophecies, covenants, promises, and threats (pertaining to mankind's fate) found in the Scriptures are conditional whether or not a condition is stated; their fulfillment is contingent upon man's response to God's commands. Promises of blessing cannot be fulfilled to a disobedient nation or individual, and prophecies of punishment will not be fulfilled against the repentant. This principle is clearly stated in Jeremiah 18:23.

There are a number of examples of conditional prophecy in the Scriptures, as the following list illustrates. First we note instances in which promised doom was averted by repentance, then instances in which promised blessing was averted by wickedness.

• Jonah's prediction that Nineveh would be destroyed was not fulfilled (Jonah 3:4, 10), even though his prophecy of doom was not qualified by any stated conditions.

• God's prophecies of Jerusalem's destruction in the days of Hezekiah were not fulfilled when the people repented (Jer. 26:18, 19).

• Isaiah's prophecy that Hezekiah would soon die of his present sickness was not fulfilled (2 Kings 20:1-6).

• God promised through Elijah to punish Ahab, then relented when Ahab repented (1 Kings 21:17-29).

• Because of Eli's disobedience, God retracted His promise that his descendants would serve the Lord forever (1 Sam. 2:30).

• God's promise to bring the Israelites who came out of Egypt into the Promised Land (Ex. 6:8) was not fulfilled (Num. 14:30-34).

• Though God through Moses promised the Israelites they would never see the Egyptians again (Ex. 14:13), He threatened to break that promise if they were disobedient (Deut. 28:58, 68).

• Ezekiel 5 contains God's promise to destroy Jerusalem, which was fulfilled a few years later (586 B.C.). Here God promised never to repeat this terrible punishment (verses 9, 10), but the same sort of destruction happened in A.D. 70.

• God promised Aaron and his sons a perpetual priesthood that would last throughout their generations (Ex. 40:15; Num. 25:13). Yet the Levitical priesthood was replaced with the Melchizedekian (Hebrews 7).

This helps us to understand why many of the prophecies of the OT, such as the description of the new Temple in the last nine chapters of Ezekiel, were never literally fulfilled. Some prophecies will never be literally fulfilled on earth because their fulfillment was conditional upon the Jews' remaining faithful in their covenant relationship with God. The promise that Israel would inherit the land of Canaan was clearly conditional on their obedience (Deut. 4:25-31; 11:13-17, 22-28; 28:1-68; 29:22-30:10; 30:15-20; 31:16-29; Jeremiah 7; 17:24-27). Though they were God's chosen people, God threatened them with destruction for unfaithfulness (Deut. 8:19, 20).

The NT teaches that literal Israel, as a nation, has been rejected by God. The nation finally sealed its fate when it crucified its promised King. Because the Jews rejected the Promiser, they lost the promises; because they rejected the King, they lost the kingdom. This is clearly stated in the allegorical parable of Israel's history in Matthew 21:33-43. According to verse 43, the kingdom of God was to be taken from the Jews and given to another "nation"—namely, the Christian church (1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6). Christ also foretold in two other parables the rejection of the Jewish nation as His people (Matt. 8:11, 12; 22:1-14). "Your house," Christ said, "is left unto you desolate" (chap. 23:38), and Paul said that God's wrath had finally come upon them (1 Thess. 2:16). Thus the promises to the Jews were nullified by their own apostasy.

The NT teaches that physical descent from Abraham is meaningless (Luke 3:8; John 8:39-44); it is Abraham's spiritual descendants—those who accept Christ as the Messiah—who are now God's special people and who inherit all the Old Testament kingdom promises (Gal. 3:7, 28, 29). There is now no difference between Jew and Gentile in regard to salvation or God's favor (chap. 3:28; Eph. 2:11-15; Rom. 10:12, 13). In fact, the term Jew itself is redefined in the New Testament to mean the true followers of Christ (Rom. 2:28, 29; Phil. 3:3). Not only did the Christian church appropriate the title "Jews"; the members also called themselves "Israel" (Gal. 6:14-16; Rom. 9:6). Therefore James could address his Epistle "to the twelve tribes" (James 1:1), even though he was writing to Christians. Many of the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament are appropriated by the Christian church in the New and will be fulfilled only in the age to come."