Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts Basic Draft

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 1
Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts

Eduard C. Hanganu
B.A., M.A., Linguistics
Lecturer in English, UE
Draft 88
Revised April 24, 2015
2015
To Lynn Renee, who has supported me with a frown through all the research I have
done in the past years, and has made sure that the documents I have written are
accurate and meet the American English Standard language grammatical and
punctuation requirements. The language rhetoric is mine, and intentional.
You have seen the future, Paul, Jessica said. Will you say what
youve seen?
Not the future, he said. Ive seen the NOW [emphasis added].
Frank Herbert, Dune (New York: Ace Books, 1965), 445.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6
Science Fiction and Prophetic Issues ............................................................................... 6
Daniels Prophecies - Two Perspectives .......................................................................... 6
The Glacier View Position ................................................................................. 6
Desmond Fords Position .................................................................................. 8
Conditional vs. Unconditional Dispute ............................................................................ 9
Logical Break in the Two Paragraphs ............................................................................ 10
This Documents Intended Purpose ............................................................................... 11
II. Gods Plan for the Sinful Mankind ...................................................................................... 13
The Divine Plan in the Old Testament ........................................................................... 13
The Divine Plan in the New Testament ......................................................................... 14
The Divine Plan and Its Nine Features .......................................................................... 15
Divine Preordination or Human Choice ........................................................................ 17
The Calvinistic Position ................................................................................... 18
The Arminian Position .................................................................................... 18
The Intermediate Position ............................................................................... 18
III. Conditional Prophecies in the Bible ................................................................................. 23
The Mistaken Prophetic Classification ....................................................................... 23
The Conditional Prophecies Defined ......................................................................... 23
Uninformed and Misdirected Criticism ......................................................................... 24
Poor Research on Bible Conditionals ............................................................................ 27
More Research on the Elusive Conditional ................................................................... 27
Verdicts and Forecasts in a Bad Mix ............................................................................. 29
Covenantal Prophecies .................................................................................... 29
Stern Threats and Generous Promises ........................................................................... 30
Gods Plan for Gentiles ................................................................................... 31
The Gentiles and the Divine Covenant .......................................................................... 32
Fixed Prophetic Messages ............................................................................... 35
First Advent Predictions .................................................................................. 36
Prophetic Messages and Divine Present ........................................................................ 37
Conditionalism in the Divine Messages ........................................................................ 38
Conditions and the Prophetic Failures ........................................................................... 39
IV. Unconditional Prophecies in the Bible ............................................................................. 41
Unconditional Prophecies under Scope ......................................................................... 42
SimplisticSimplisticthe Simplistic ......................................................................... 43
Assumed Unconditionalism in Daniel ........................................................................... 45
Failed Unconditionalism in Zechariah ........................................................................... 47
The Unmentioned Alternate Eschaton ........................................................................... 49
Claimed Unconditionalism in the NT ............................................................................ 54

Conclusion without the Conclusion ............................................................................... 55
Guidelines in Prophetic Interpretation ........................................................................... 56
The God Who Is Outside Human Time ......................................................................... 58
Conditions in Apocalyptic Prophecies ........................................................................... 59
V. Prophecies and Their Contingencies ..................................................................................... 61
Unfulfilled Prophecies A Deep Puzzle ....................................................................... 61
Prophetic Message and Its Language ............................................................................. 61
Prophetic Message and Contingencies ........................................................................... 62
Prophetic Message and the Providence .......................................................................... 63
Prophetic Message and Human Choice ......................................................................... 64
Divine Predictions and Their Constraints ...................................................................... 65
[Predictions That Include Conditions] ........................................................... 65
[Predictions That Include Assurances] .......................................................... 66
[Predictions That Have No Conditions] ......................................................... 68
VI. Conditionalism Limitation Has No Basis ............................................................................ 70
The SDA Perspective on Conditionalism ...................................................................... 70
The Position Contradicts the Bible Truth ...................................................................... 70
Arguments against the SDA Perspective ....................................................................... 71
Gods Eternal and Unchangeable Plan .......................................................................... 72
Prophets Trusted the Divine Revelation ........................................................................ 72
Contingencies inside Gods Fixed Plan ......................................................................... 73
Right Approach to Biblical Prophecies .......................................................................... 75
VII. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 78
Gods Eternal but Contingent Plan ................................................................................ 78
Prophetic Classification Incorrect .................................................................................. 78
Contingent Classical Prophecies .................................................................................... 78
Contingent Apocalyptic Prophecies ........................................................................... 78
VIII. References ......................................................................................................................... 80
Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts

I. Introduction
Science Fiction and Prophetic Issues
The literate and informed readers have no doubt that Frank Herberts Dune1 ranks at the
peak in the Science Fiction collection as an exceptional classic and the worlds indisputable best
seller. What might be hard to understand to this documents readers is the reason a paper that
promises from the title to deal with sophisticated and intricate theological matters that might
cause instant headaches even to readers used to such literature should be introduced through the
quotation from Herbert. The motive for this odd and misplaced quotation should be more and
more apparent as the papers content opens before the readers.
Daniels Prophecies - Two Perspectives
The Glacier View Position
The 1980 Glacier View affair still lingers in the minds of those familiar with the events
that occurred in the Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] church at that time, as the dogmatic
and sectarian SDA theologians, scholars, and members still seethe over the alleged damages that
Ford, the educator and scholar, has been blamed to have caused to the SDA church at that time
with his heretical theological claims.2, 3 A central issue in the intense debate between Ford and
the SDA theologians and scholars was whether or not the time prophecies of Daniel contain
conditional elements or areexclusively unconditional.4 Also related to this critical issue was
another essential question, that is, to what extent do the prophecies of Daniel permit application
to multiple situations or fulfillments?5
The Glacier View theologians and scholars seem to have had a united perspective on the
above two issues. Their firm and non-negotiable position was that Apocalyptic literature [the
eschatological prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, in fact] has an unconditionality and
inevitability about it that lends to its predictions the aspect of absoluteness.6 This deductive and
non-empirical conclusion was based on the assumed but unconfirmed distinction between
alleged classical and apocalyptic prophecies in the Bible. Argue the Glacier View scholars:
In answering this question [Is it true that all Old Testament prophecies were to be fulfilled by the first
advent of Christ?] it should be pointed out that not all Old Testament prophetic literature is of an identical
nature. There are basically two major types of prophetic literature: (1) general prophecy, represented, for
example, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, et cetera; and (2) apocalyptic prophecy, such as in Daniel.
As has been widely recognized, general prophecy has a perspective that focuses primarily on the prophets'
own time, although it also has wider perspectives beyond its local setting, including dimensions of a cosmic
scale that culminate in the great day of the Lord and a new heaven and a new earth (see Isaiah 2; 24-27: 65;
66; Zechariah 9-14). Because of these two dimensions, general prophecy may at times be seen to have an
aspect of dual fulfillment or two foci a local, contemporary one and a universal, future perspective. (This is
not the same as the apotelesmatic principle, which allows for multiple fulfillments.)
Apocalyptic prophecy, in contrast, has a universal scope. It deals not so much with a local, contemporary
frame work of history, but rather with the major salvation-historical acts of God for the whole span of
human history, the great controversy between good and evil. Thus we see in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11, and 12 a
treatment of world powers in onward succession from Daniel's time until the pre-Advent judgment and be
yond to the universal establishment of God's everlasting kingdom. Furthermore, we notice that the
apocalyptic prophet, while covering the span of history, focuses on end-time events. In addition, much of
apocalyptic prophecy is phrased in symbolic imagery communicated by dreams and visions, yet
representing historical realities.
Another important feature of apocalyptic prophecy is its horizontal, historical continuity. History is
portrayed as directional, a continuum that is under God's control and moving ever closer to the glorious
consummation. This perspective schematizes world history and delineates the powers that are to play a role
in it. Apocalyptic emphasizes the fact that God is in control and salvation history moves according to His
fore knowledge. One empire after another emerges upon the scene of action just as predicted, not only
according to the prophesied pattern but also according to its duration of domination over God's people as
indicated by the specific time predictions. It is this specificity in the unfolding of history that works against
the application of a dual fulfillment for apocalyptic prophecy. Apocalyptic literature has an
unconditionality and inevitability about it that lends to its predictions the aspect of absoluteness. God is in
control of man's affairs, for He is sovereign. No matter what evil powers do, good will triumph according to
God's foreknowledge. In harmony with this view, we see in Daniel the rise of specific world powers, a
little-horn power with a predetermined time of supremacy and a time period after which God would
intervene in behalf of His people (see Dan. 7:25; 8; 14). A careful review of these apocalyptic prophecies
shows that they do not terminate at the first advent. At that time the fourth world empire, Rome, was in full
control, and the little horn power had not appeared on the scene, indicating that only a section of the
prophecy had been fulfilled and much was yet to come. Therefore, as far as Daniel's prophecies are
concerned, it was not God's plan, after He gave Daniel this prophetic preview of salvation history, that all
Old Testament prophecies were destined to be fulfilled at the first advent. 7
Pfandl concurs with the Glacier View theologians and scholars and restates the outdated
and erroneous perspective for his enthusiastic readers:
It is generally agreed that there is a difference between classical prophecy, in which the prophet was God's
spokesperson to His people in Old and New Testament times, and apocalyptic prophecy with its focus on
the end of the world and the coming of the kingdom of God.
The fulfillment of the promises in classical prophecy was dependent on the response of the people 0er.
18:7-10). Classical prophets tied God's activities to events in human history.5
On the other hand, apocalyptic prophecy presents God's cosmic timetable for the final supernatural
appearance of the kingdom of God. Hence it is not conditional. In other words, it is not dependent on the
human response, e.g., Christ's first coming was not dependent on Israels or Judah's obedience. He came,
when the fullness of the time [out lined in Dan. 9:24-27] had come (Gal. 4:4, NKJV), even though the
Jews were not ready to receive Him.
Similarly, the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation which point towards the time of the end and the
Second Coming are independent of any human response. In apocalyptic prophecy we become spectators to
events on a world stage; we are seeing the divine foreknowledge unfold the course of the future.6
Apocalyptic prophecies explain what God has foreseen and what He has determined should happen. The
2,300 evenings and mornings and the three and a half times in Daniel 7 and 8, therefore, are not
conditional. They cannot be repeatedly applied to different ages as the interpreter sees fit. In the sweep of
history they can only have one fulfillment, just as the 70-week prophecy in Daniel 9 only had one
fulfillment.8
The notion that seems to strike the most in the above quotation, and which is borrowed
from Johnsson, is that of spectators. The original passage that contains this irregular but also
rather dubious philosophical term is included in the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
volume 3 [further, DARCOM] where Johnsson states:
When we compare the prophecies of the nations in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 with those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or
Ezekiel, we note a marked contrast. In Daniel, the place of Israel has receded, as has the element of
threatenings. Rather, we behold a panorama, a march of the kingdoms leading on to the Eschaton (the End).
We have become spectators [emphasis added] to events on a world stage; we are seing the divine
foreknowledge unfold the course of the future.9
The Oxford English Dictionary [further, OED], defines the word spectator10 to mean
one who sees or looks on at, some scene or occurrence; a beholder, onlooker, observer, that is,
someone who is outside a situation or an event that takes place and who has no active control or
impact over that situation or event even if what happens concerns or affects him in a direct
manner. The particular claims that Johnsson, and Pfandl make about the role that humans have in
what Johnsson calls the panorama in Daniel require much more than a cursive and occasional
look in the conditional versus unconditional context because their direct implications might
impact theological perspectives about Gods plan for man, free will, and predestination issues
and oppose the Calvinistic and Arminian perspectives on salvation and perdition.
Desmond Fords Position
The theological perspective Ford brought to the Glacier View circus on the eschatological
prophecies in Daniel was in direct contrast with that held among the SDA theologians and
scholars who opposed him, and was an important reason for his condemnation as a heretic and
dismissal from his SDA church position. Fords hermeneutical position was that the whole
weight of New Testament testimony [is] that God's ideal plan was that Jesus should have
returned in the first century AD, not long after His ascension to heaven. This is clearly taught
from Matthew to Revelation (295, italicized in original). 11 The Glacier View theologians and
scholars saw his hermeneutic as a direct challenge to the SDA churchs unique interpretation
for Daniel and contribution to the Christian world and as an unacceptable and intolerable
departure from the SDA orthodox position on the prophetic book. Elaborates Ford on his
distinctive perspective:
But first, of much greater importance is the whole weight of New Testament testimony that Gods
ideal plan was that Jesus should have returned in the first century AD, not long after His ascension to
heaven. This is clearly taught from Matthew to Revelation and recognized by the vast majority of
New Testament scholars [emphasis in the original]. The fact helps us to understand why Hebrews could
apply the Day of Atonement to Christs ascension within the veil and promise that soon He would
emerge to bless those who outside in the earthly courtyard were eagerly looking for Him. See Heb. 9:26-28.
(See Westcott and other commentators who so apply Heb. 9:27, 28)
This thought should not be revolutionary. Ellen G. White says it clearly in Prophets and Kings 703-704.
What we are now doing to warn the world in order that the eternal kingdom might be set up was originally
the task of Israel after the return from Babylon, and should have been fulfilled by the end of the seventy
weeks of years. Our own Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is also emphatic that the end of all
things should have come in the first century (See SDABC 7:729). But the real evidence is within Scripture
itself. 12
Let us give special attention to Matt. 24:34. The blacksmiths sign: All sorts of twistings and turnings
done here is appropriate to the exegesis usually applied to this text. But the evidence is overwhelming
that Christ was saying He planned to return to that very generation He was addressing [emphasis in
the original].
The decisive fact is that the expression this generation occurs fourteen times in the gospels, and
always refers to Christs contemporaries [emphasis in the original]. The context itself is clear enough.
The siege of Jerusalem spoken of in verse 15 launches a terrible time of troublesee verse 21. It is quite
impossible to legitimately separate the great tribulation from the attack on Jerusalem. Next, we read verse
29 which assures us that immediately after the terrible days of Jerusalems suffering there would be signs in
the heavens climaxed by Christs own appearance in the clouds of heaven.
When we turn to what was probably the original version of the Olivet discourseMark 13the case is at
least as strong. The description of verses 24-27 is today overwhelmingly taken as applying to the end of the
age and the Parousia. The verses stand in strong contrast to the merely terrestrial phenomena of verse 7
forward. The convulsion of the heavens appears to be a fitting accompaniment of the manifestation of the
Son of Man to the world which has rejected Him. Vincent Taylor writes, In the light of 5f (wars,
earthquakes, famines) and 26 (the coming of the Son of Man with clouds), it seems probable that objective
phenomena are meant.21 The gathering of Israel is frequently pictured in the Old Testament as an event
of the end-time. See Isa. 60:4ff, Micah 4:1-7, etc. There does not seem to have been any plainer language
Christ could have used to convey the message of the Son of Mans literal coming than verse 26. We must
ask those who apply this verse and context metaphoricallyjust how could [emphasis in the original]
Christ have made the point of His return, if words as clear as these are capable of another meaning? We
would also inquire whether the New Testament teaching on the resurrection and the age to come is not
evaporated by such exegesis. While it is true that the fall of Jerusalem helped the young church to attain
independence, it remains to be doubted whether those Christians persecuted after AD 70 considered
themselves to be in the age of glory.
Each and all of the statements preceding and succeeding the picture of the Son of Man coming in the
clouds, bear witness to significance of this central description. The great tribulation, described as occurring
just before the convulsion of the heavens, is linked with the time of the end in its Old Testament source.
See Dan. 12:1-4. Verse 32, by its reference to h hmera ekein pinpoints the event of the great day of
Yahweh so often referred to in the prophets, 22 while the parables of the fig tree and the master of the house,
which bracket the reference to h hmera ekein echo the need for alertness in view of its proximity. 23 13
Conditional vs. Unconditional Dispute

That the issue about conditional versus unconditional prophecies in Daniel was
important enough to determine whether or not Ford could maintain his professional status in the
SDA church is obvious from Johnssons expressed concern about the new and dangerous
hermeneutic that could change the traditional Adventist interpretation on the prophetic book and
endanger the church theological stand as a remnant. States Johnsson:
Seventh-day Adventists always have believed that a principle of conditionality operated in that kind of
Bible prophecy which expected human response [emphasis added]. On the other hand they regard the
grand prophecies of Daniel land Revelation [emphasis added], depicting the struggle between good and
evil and the ultimate victory and establishment of Gods eternal kingdom, as revelations of His
foreknowledge and an evidence of His sovereignty [emphasis added].
In recent years, however, it has been argued by some that all prophecyincluding not only general
prophecy as it appears in the major and minor prophets but also the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and
Revelationshould be regarded as conditional prophecy. That is, it is suggested that the possible
fulfillment of any prophecy in its primary intent was conditional on the obedience of Gods people
[emphasis added]. Such a position, were it to be proved valid, would affect radically Adventist
interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation [emphasis added]. 14
Logical Break in the Two Paragraphs

The perceptive readers will notice that the two paragraphs Johnsson wrote show a logical
break due to the fact that the SDA theologian appears to oppose in them matters that are not
opposable or in logical conflict. This becomes obvious when one looks at the table below:
Seventh-day Adventists always have believed that a
principle of conditionality operated in that kind of
Bible prophecy which expected human response
[emphasis added].15
In recent years, however, it has been argued by some
that all prophecyincluding not only general prophecy
as it appears in the major and minor prophets but also
the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and
Revelationshould be regarded as conditional
prophecy. This it, it is suggested that the possible
fulfillment of any prophecy in its primary intent was
conditional on the obedience of Gods people
[emphasis added].17
On the other hand they regard the grand prophecies

of Daniel land Revelation [emphasis added], depicting
the struggle between good and evil and the ultimate
victory and establishment of Gods eternal kingdom, as
revelations of His foreknowledge and an evidence of
His sovereignty [emphasis added].16
Johnssons perspective that a principle of conditionality operated in that kind of Bible

prophecy which expected human response, or, in different words, that, the possible fulfillment
of any prophecy in its primary intent was conditional on the obedience of Gods people is based
in the Bible and not hard to support with adequate biblical texts. Also scriptural is the notion that
all the prophetic visions or utterances that are included in the Bible are revelations of His
[Gods] foreknowledge and an evidence of His sovereignty. There is no contrast or conflict
between the statements that (1) a principle of conditionality operated in that kind of Bible
prophecy which expected human response, and also that (2) biblical prophecies are revelations
of His [Gods] foreknowledge and an evidence of His sovereignty. Both notions go together and
depend on each other. This must be also true and evident in the grand prophecies of Daniel and
Revelation that are canonical books. How could such biblical truths affect radically Adventist
interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation? So far, then, the two theological
notions Johnsson has presented are biblical and in full accord, but the contrast he has attempted
to produce is illogical and false. Prophetic messages to humans depend for their ultimate
conclusions or verdicts on the human response, and it is also true that God, in his divine
foreknowledge or prescience knows the outcomes for future events as well as He knows them for
past events because He lives outside and above time, and does not perceive the past, present, and
future in sequence but as a fused NOWthe divine present.18
Further paragraphs on the same page appear to reveal to the baffled readers the actual
point Johnsson has attempted to make but has not succeeded so far due to his personal confusion
about the matter under discussion. Continues the SDA historicist:
The author of this chapter analyzes a variety of prophecies in both Testaments. He concludes that although
conditionality is a valid principle of interpretation, it cannot be used indiscriminately. The evidence from
Scripture is clear that all Bible prophecies are not conditional.
Most predictions which have been viewed in the past by Seventh-day Adventists as conditional on Israels
obedience are not prophecies at all in the real sense of the term. They are based on the known promises and
judgments (blessings/curses0 which naturally arise out of the covenant relationship God formed with Israel.
Conditionality is built into the promises and threatenings of the covenant; hence, it is misleading to extend
this term and perspective to non-covenant predictions. When this body of covenant prophecies are
separated from the whole, it is noted that conditionality plays a minor role in the remaining kinds of
prophecy.
For example, the prophecies of the Saviors first and second advents are predicated on the divine
intervention in history as God asserts His sovereignty to work out His eternal purpose. No failure on
Israels part could have prevented the first advent of the Messiah at the specified time God determined.
Some kinds of apocalyptic prophecy which emphasize the covenant setting with Israel (such as appear in
Zechariah) may have a conditional element because of that fact. However, it is evident that the grand sweep
of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation transcend Israel. They often involve the nations of
the world as a whole and have a cosmic, heavenly dimension as well. Such prophetic revelations are not
conditional on human response. Rather, they disclose the divine sovereignty and foreknowledge of the
Creator, revealing for the encouragement of His people the shape of things to come and the assurance of the
ultimate victorious establishment of the eternal kingdom of righteousness. 19
The SDA theologians confusion seems to persist in the next paragraphs because he has
failed to understand that God lives outside time and time does not apply to Him 20 because
God was before time began.21 What Johnsson defines as prophetic revelations [that] are not
conditional on human response22 in Daniel and Revelation are in fact Divine Forecasts that
derive from His prescience and describe events and situations that from Gods perspective have
already occurred in His NOW that includes the past, the present, and the future. Such prophetic
situations and events appear to be unconditional because while from a human historical
perspective they will occur sometime in the immediate or distant future, from the Divine
perspective they have already occurred and are past events that humans cannot change.
This Documents Intended Purpose
The purpose of this research document is to resolve the theological confusion that
troubles the SDA theological circles about the claimed unconditional prophecies in Daniel and
Revelation, that is, (1) to dispute the erroneous and unbiblical Calvinistic notion that in the
Divine plan humans are simple spectatorspassive creatures that drift on the historical
panorama and have no control over their future, and (2) to provide a realistic and viable
solution to the SDA false hermeneutical position that appears to place in an insoluble impasse
Gods plan for humankind in Daniel and Revelation with the human free will.
This document will argue that,
1. The SDA Calvinistic notion that humans are mere spectators 23passive and impotent
creatures on the historical timeline or panorama,24created without choices or alternatives
about their future and predestined to election or reprobation,25 is illogical and false, and has
no biblical basis. Closer to the inspired Scriptural revelation is Ericksons weak Arminian
perspective that argues that in Gods plan the humans have been endowed at their creation with
free will and with the freedom to make choices and determine their own future. 26
2. The alleged conditional biblical prophecies defined as those biblical predictions whose
fulfillment is dependent on the action or reactions of human beings27 are conditional in the
sense that these prophetic messages are rebukes, threats, and promises intended to induce
needed changes in human behaviorrepentance and reform, or to reward obedience to the divine
requirements and expectations. When rebukes and threats have met their intended purposes with
the humans and repentance occurs, God changes His mind, that is, he modifies his prophetic
verdicts from the initial punishment verdicts to reward verdicts. The opposite situation also
occurs, that is, when humans alter their good behaviors and fall into sin, God again changes His
mind, and modifies his prophetic verdicts from reward verdicts to punishment verdicts.
3. The misunderstood unconditional apocalyptic or eschatological time prophecies in Daniel
and Revelation that the SDA historicist theologians and scholars have misread and
misinterpreted as biblical predictions whose fulfillment is independent of the action or reaction
of human beings28 are in actual fact divine forecastsunconditional in the sense that the
predicted historical situations and events have, in Gods transcendence, occurred in the divine
presentthe eternal NOWthat includes the past, present, and the future in an indissoluble
time frame. While the humans look for such situations and events to occur in their future, from
Gods omniscient perspective and foreknowledge outside time these historical incidents have
been completed, and are past, irreversible, unalterable, and therefore unconditional. The
human freedom and human will remain unaltered; Gods divine plan works on an individual and
group scalefrom persons to kingdoms and to empires, but it is contingent in its fulfillment
details on human choices, while God uses those human choices to promote and accomplish His
eternal and perfect plan for the sinful mankind.
II. Gods Plan for the Sinful Mankind

Erickson introduces the discussion about Gods plan for mankind with a few rhetorical
questions that are intended to capture the readers attention and stimulate his thoughts, and then
proposes a biblical definition for the Divine plan. He states:
Where is history going, and why? What if anything is causing the pattern of history to develop as it is?
These are questions which confront every thinking person and which crucially affect his way of life.
Christianitys answer is that God has a plan which includes everything that occurs and that He is now at
work carrying out that plan.1
Finally, there is the Christian doctrine of the divine plan, which affirms that an all-wise, all-powerful
good God has from all eternity planned what is to occur and that history is carrying out his
intentions [emphasis added]. There is a definite goal toward which history is progressing. History is not,
then, merely chance happenings. And the force causing its movements is not impersonal atoms or blind
fate. It is, rather, a loving God with whom we can have a personal relationship. We may look forward with
assurance, then, toward the attainment of the telos of the universe. And we may align our lives with what
we know will be the outcome of history.2
The Divine Plan in the Old Testament

Erickson looks at Gods plan in the Old Testament [further, OT], and notices that in this
plan (1) God is linked with His chosen people through the covenant He had established with
them, (3) that the Divine plan is not vague and impersonal, but specific and personal, and (4) that
the plan is efficacious because fulfills His promises to His people. States the scholar:
In the Old Testament presentation, the planning and ordaining work of God is very much tied up with the
covenant which the Lord made with his people. As we read of all that God did in choosing and taking
personal care of his people, two truths about him stand out. On one hand, God is supremely powerful, the
creator and sustained of all that is. On the other hand is the loving, caring, personal nature of the Lord. He
is not mere abstract power, but is thought of as a loving person. 3
For the Old Testament writers, it was virtually inconceivable that anything could happen independently of
the will and working of God. As evidence of this, consider that common impersonal expressions like It
rained are not found in the Old Testament. For the Hebrews, rain did not simply happen; God sent the
rain. They saw him as the all-powerful determiner of everything that occurs. Not only is he active in
everything that occurs, but he has planned it. What is happening now was planned long ago. God himself
comments, for example, concerning the destruction wreaked by the king of Assyria: Have you not heard
that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should make
fortified cities crash into heaps of ruins ( Isa. 37:26). Even something so seemingly trivial as the building
of reservoirs is described as having been planned long before (Isa. 22:11). There is a sense that every day
has been designed and ordered by the Lord. Thus the psalmist writes, Thy eyes beheld my unformed
substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet
there was none of them (Ps.139:16). A similar thought is expressed by Job (14:5). There is in Gods plan a
concern for the welfare of the nation of Israel, and of every one of Gods children (Pss. 27:10-11; 37; 65:3;
91; 121; 139:16; Dan 12:1; Jonah 3:5). We find in Psalms 91 and 121 a confidence in the goodness,
provision, and protection of God that in many ways reminds us of Jesus teaching about the birds and the
flowers (Matt. 6:25: 29).
The Old Testament also enunciates belief in the efficaciousness of Gods plan. What is now coming to pass
is doing so because it is (and has always been) part of Gods plan. He will most assuredly bring to actual
occurrence everything in his plan. What he has promised, he will do. Isaiah 46:10-11 puts it this way: I am
God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet
done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, calling a bird of prey from
the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have
purposed, and I will do it. Similar statements are found in Isaiah 14:27-27. Here we read not only of Gods
faithfulness to his avowed purpose, but also of the futility of opposing it: For the Lord of hosts has
purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (v. 27; cf. Job 42:2;
Jer 23:20; Zech. 1:6).
It is particularly in the wisdom literature and the prophets that the idea of an all-inclusive divine purpose is
most prominent.4 God has from the beginning, from all eternity, had an inclusive plan encompassing the
whole of reality and extending even to the minor details of life. The Lord has made everything for its
purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble (Prov. 16:4; cf. 3:19-20; Job 38, especially v. 4; Isa 40:12;
Jer. 10:12-13). Even what is ordinarily thought of as an occurrence of chance, such as the casting of lots, is
represented as the Lords doing (Prov. 16:33). Nothing can deter or frustrate the accomplishments of his
purpose. Proverbs 19:21 says, Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord
that will be established (cf. 21:30-31); Jer. 10:23-24). We humans may not always understand as God
works out his purpose in our lives. This was the experience of Job throughout the book that bears his name;
it is articulated particularly in 42:3, Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have
uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
Thus, in the view of the Old Testament believer, God had created the world, he was directing history, and
all this was but the unfolding of a plan prepared in eternity and related to his intention of fellowship with
his people. Creating in its vast extent and the details of individual lives were included in this plan and
would surely come to pass as God designed. As a result, the prophets could speak of coming events with
certainty. Future events could be prophesied because God had planned them, and his plan would surely
come to fruition.3
The Divine Plan in the New Testament

The scholar turns now to the New Testament evidence and discusses how Gods plan
continues to be described in its pages. Notable from Jesuss words to his disciples and listeners
are the facts that Gods design has not been limited to universal historical perspectives and
events, but also to the smallest details in the human lives. Matthew and John describe in detail
how Gods plan was fulfilled in their time through believers and unbelievers. Paul also talks
about the Divine purpose and its accomplishment in his life and in the believers lives. States
Erickson:
The plan and purpose of God is also prominent in the New Testament. Jesus saw the events of his life and
events in the future as necessarily coming to pass because of the plan of God. Jesus affirmed that God had
planned not only the large, complex, events, such as the fall and destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-22),
but details as well, such as the apostasy of and betrayal by Judas, and the faithfulness of the remaining
disciples (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22; John 17:12; 18:90. The fulfillment of Gods plan and Old
Testament prophecy is a prominent theme in the writing of Matthew (1:22, 2:15, 23: 4:14; 8:17; 12:17;
13:35; 21:4; 26:56) and of John (12:38; 19:24, 28, 36). While critics may object that some of these
prophecies were fulfilled by people who knew about them and may have had a vested interest in seeing
them fulfilled (e.g., Jesus fulfilled Psalm 69:21 by saying I thirst [John 19:28[), it is notable that other
prophecies were fulfilled by persons who had not desire to fulfil them and probably had no knowledge of
them, such as the Roman soldiers in their casting lots for Jesus garment and not breaking any of his
bones.5
Even where there was no specific prophecy to be fulfilled, Jesus conveyed a sense of necessity ()
concerning future events. For example, he said to his disciples, And when you hear of wards and rumors
of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yetAnd the gospel must first be
preached to all nations (Mark 13:7, 10). He also had a profound sense of necessity concerning what he
must do; the Fathers plan needed to be completed. Thus, he said, I must preach the good news of the
kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose (Luke 4:43), and As Moses lifted
up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in him may
have eternal life (John 3:14-15). We know that he had this consciousness already at the age of twelve, for
when his worried parents found him in the temple, he responded, Did you not know that I must be in my
Fathers house? (literally, in the things of my FatherLuke 2:49).
The apostles also laid emphasis upon the divine purpose. Peter said in his speech at Pentecost, This Jesus,
delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the
hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23). And after Peter and John were released by the Sanhedrin, the disciples
lifted their voices to God, nothing that Herod and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles and the people
of Israel, had been gathered in Jerusalem, to do [against Jesus] whatever thy hand and thy plan had
predestined to take place (Acts 4:27-28). Peter also noted that various events which had occurred were in
fulfillment of the predictions of Scripturethe apostasy of Judas (Acts 1:16), the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit (2:16-21) and the resurrection of Jesus (2:24-28). In writing the Book of Revelation the apostle John
gave us a particularly striking example of belief in the divine plan. The note of certainty pervading the
whole book, the entire series of events predicted there, derives from belief in Gods plan and
foreordination.
It is in Pauls writings that the divine plan according to which everything comes to pass is made most
explicit. Everything that occurs is by Gods choice and in accordance with his will (1 Cor. 12:18; 15:38;
Col. 1:19). The very fortunes of nations are determined by him (Acts 17:26). Gods redemptive work
unfolds in accordance with his intended purpose (Gal. 3:8; 4:4-5). The choice of individual and nation to be
his own and the consequent events are Gods sovereign doing (Rom. 9-11). Paul sees himself as having
been set apart even before his birth (Gal. 1:15). One might well take the image of the potter and the clay,
which Paul uses in a specific and somewhat narrow reference (Rom. 9:20-23), and see it as expressive of
his whole philosophy of history. Paul regards all things that happen as part of Gods intention for his
children (Eph. 1:11-12). Thus Paul says that in everything God works for good for those who are called
according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28), his purpose being that we might be conformed to the image of his
Son (v. 29).4
The Divine Plan and Its Nine Features

Erickson finds that that there are nine features that define Gods plan for mankind, and
those characteristics are (1) its eternal nature, (2) its free implementation, (3) its intended
purpose, (4), its inclusiveness, (5), its efficaciousness, (6), its active nature, (7), its twofold
aspectDivine and human, (8) its human explicit human dimension, and (9) its consistent and
invariable nature. States the theologian:
We now need to draw together, from these numerous and varied biblical references, some general
characteristics of Gods plan. This will enable us to understand more completely what the plan is like and
what we can expect from God.
1. Gods plan is from all eternity. We have noted that the psalmist spoke of Gods having planned all of our
days before there were any of them (Ps. 139:16), and that Isaiah spoke of Gods having planned it long
ago (22:11). Paul in Ephesians indicates that God chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world
(1:4), and later in the same letter Paul speaks of the eternal purpose which [God] has realized in Christ
Jesus our Lord (3:11). The apostle also writes to Timothy that God has saved us and called us with a holy
calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ
Jesus ages ago (2 Tim. 1:9). These decisions are not made as history unfolds and events occur. God
manifests his purpose within history (2 Tim 1:10), but his decisions have been made long before. They
have always been Gods plan, from all eternity, from before the beginning of time.
Being eternal, the plan of God does not have any chronological sequence within it. This is one reason for
referring to the plan of God rather than the decrees. There is no before and after within eternity. There is, of
course, a logical sequence (e.g., the decision to let Jesus die on the cross logically follows the decision to
send him to the earth), and there is a temporal sequence in the enacting of the events which have been
decreed; but there is no temporal sequence to Gods willing. It is one coherent simultaneous decision.
2. The plan of God and the decisions contained therein are free on Gods part. This is implied in
expressions like the good pleasure of his will (o). It is also implicit in the fact that no one has
advised him (for that matter, there is no one who could advise him). Isaiah (40:13-14) says, Who has
directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as his counselor has instructed him? Whom did he consult for his
enlightenment, and who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way
of understanding? Paul quotes this very passage as he concludes his great statement on the sovereignty
and inscrutability of Gods workings (Rom. 11:34). After adding a word from Job 35:7 to the effect that
God is indebted to no one, he closes with For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him
be glory forever. Amen (Rom 11:36). Paul also quotes Isaiah 40:13 in 1 Corinthians. After speaking of the
wisdom of God as having been decreed before the ages (1 Cor. 2:7), he asks: Fro who has known the mind
of the Lord so as to instruct him? (v.16). That man has had no input into what God has planned might at
first seem to be something of a disadvantage. But on reflection we see that it is instead a source of comfort.
For, being without mans input, Gods plan is not subject to the incompleteness of knowledge and the
errors of judgment so characteristic of human plans.
Not only do Gods decisions not stem from any sort of external determination, they are not a matter of
internal compulsion either. That is to say, although Gods decisions and actions are quite consistent with
his nature, they are not constrained by his nature. He is not like the gods of pantheism, which are virtually
constrained by their own nature to will what they will and do what they do. God did not have to create. He
had to act in a loving and holy fashion in whatever he did, but he was not required to create. He freely
chose to create for reasons not known to us. While his love requires him to act lovingly toward any
creatures he might bring into existence, it did not require that he create in order to have objects of love.
There have been eternally an expression of love among the several members of the Trinity (see, e.g. John
17:24).
3. In the ultimate sense, the purpose of Gods plan is Gods glory. This is the highest of all values, and the
one great motivating factor in all that God has chosen and done. Paul indicates that all things were created
through him [Christ] and for him (Col. 1:16). God chose us in Christ and destined us according to the
purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace (Eph. 1:5-6). The twenty-four elders in Revelation
who fall down and worship the Lord God Almighty sing, Worthy art though, our Lord and God, to receive
glory and honor and power, for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.
(Rev. 4:11). What God does, he does for his own names sake (Isa. 48:11); Ezek. 20:9). The purpose of the
whole plan of salvation is the glory of God through the good works which God has prepared for his people
to do through the good works which God has prepared for his people to do (Eph. 2:8-10). Jesus said that his
followers were to let their lights so shine that men would see their good works and glorify their Father in
heaven (Matthew 5:16; cf. John 15:8). We have been sealed with the Spirit to the praise of his glory (vv.
13-14).
This is not to say that there are no secondary motivations behind Gods plan and resultant actions. He has
provided the means of salvation in order to fulfill his love for mankind and his concern for their welfare.
This, however, is not an ultimate end, but only a means to the greater end, Gods own glory. We must bear
in mind that God is truly the Lord. We exist for his sake, for his glory and pleasure, rather than he for ours.
4. The plan of God is all-inclusive. This is implicit in the great variety of items which are mentioned in the
Bible as parts of Gods plan. Beyond that, however, are explicit statements of the extent of Gods plan.
Paul speaks of God as the one who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph.
1:11). The psalmist says that all things are thy servants (Ps. 119:91). While all ends are part of Gods
plan, all means are as well. Thus the comprehensiveness of the divine decisions goes beyond what we
might expect. Although we tend at times to think of sacred and secular areas of life, no such division exists
from Gods standpoint. There are no areas that fall outside the purview of his concern and decision.
5. Gods plan is efficacious. What he has purposed from eternity will surely come to pass. The Lord says,
As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it standFor the Lord of hosts has
purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (Isa. 14:24, 27). He
will not change his mind, nor will he discover hitherto unknown considerations which will cause him to
alter his intentions. My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, says the Lord in Isaiah
46:10. Because the counsel of the Lord is from all eternity and is perfect, it will never fade nor be replaced;
it endures forever: The counsel of the Lord stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations
(Ps. 33:11).
6. Gods plan relates to his actions rather than his nature. It pertains to his decisions regarding what he shall
do, not to his personal attributes. This is to say that God does not decide to be loving and powerful, for
example. He is loving and powerful simply by virtue of his being God. He does not have to choose to be
loving and powerful; indeed, he could not choose to be otherwise. Thus, the decisions of God relate to
objects, events, and processes external to the divine nature, not to what he is or what transpires within his
person.6
7. The plan of God relates primarily to what God himself does in terms of creating, preserving, directing,
and redeeming. It also involves human willing and acting, but only secondarily, that is, as means to the
ends he purposes, or as results of actions which he takes. Note that Gods role here is to decide that certain
things will take place in our lives, not to lay down commands to act in a certain way. To be sure, what God
has decided will come to pass does not involve an element of necessity. The particulars of Gods plan,
however, should be thought of less as imperatives than as descriptions of what will occur. The plan of God
does not force men to act in particular ways, but renders it certain that they will freely act in those ways.
8. Thus, while the plan of God relates primarily to what God does, the actions of men are also included.
Jesus noted, for example, that the responses of individuals to his message were a result of the Fathers
decision: All that the Father gives me will come to meNo one can come to me unless the Father who
sent me draws him. (John 6:34, 44; cf. 17:2, 6, 9). Luke said in Acts 13:48 that as many as were ordained
to eternal life believed.
Gods plan includes what we ordinarily call good acts. Cyrus, who did not personally know or
acknowledge Jehovah, was foreordained to help fulfil Gods purpose of rebuilding Jerusalem and the
temple (Isa. 44:28). Paul says that we believers are [Gods] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10). On the other hand, the
evil actions of men, which are contrary to Gods law and moral intentions, are also seen in Scripture as part
of Gods plan, as foreordained by him. The betrayal, conviction, and crucifixion of Jesus are a prominent
instance of this (Luke 22:22: Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). (The particular way in which Gods will relates to evil
actions will be more fully discussed later in this chapter; at this point we must simply note that these
actions also fall within the scope of Gods plan).
9. The plan of God in terms of its specifics is unchangeable. This idea has already been introduced in the
statement regarding the efficaciousness of Gods plan. Here we wish to emphasize that God does not
change his mind or alter his decisions regarding specific determinations. This may seem strange in light of
the seeming alterations of his intentions with regard to Nineveh (Jonah), and his apparent repentance for
having made man (Gen. 6:6). The statement in Genesis 6, however, should be regarded as an
anthropomorphism, and Jonahs announcement of impending destruction should be viewed as a warning
used to effect Gods actual plan for Nineveh. We must keep in mind here that constancy is one of the
attributes of Gods greatness (pp. 278-81).5
Divine Preordination or Human Choice

Hermeneutical approaches to biblical prophecies must include an answer to the question
whether or not in the Divine plan, God has predestined the human beings to an invariable and
inflexible future or whether the human beings have free will and can make the choices and take
the options that could determine what their future would be. Three theological perspectives and
an intermediate position are discussed: the Calvinistic Position, the Arminian Position, and the
Intermediate Position that attempts to reconcile Gods invariable and immutable plan with the
human freedom. States Erickson:
We must now consider whether Gods plan or human action is logically prior. While Calvinists and
Arminians are agreed that human actions are included in Gods plan, they disagree as to what is the cause
and what is the result. Do people do what they do because God has decided that this is exactly how they
are going to act, or does God first foresee what they will do and then on that basis make his decisions as to
what is going to happen?6
The Calvinistic Position

Calvinists believe that Gods plan is logically prior and that mans decisions and actions are a consequence.
With respect to the particular matter of the acceptance or rejection of salvation, God in his plan has chosen
that some shall believe and thus receive the offer of eternal life. He foreknows what will happen because he
has decided what is to happen. This is true with respect to all the other decisions and actions of human
beings as well. God is not dependent upon what man decides. It is not the case, then, that God determines
that what men will do will come to pass, nor does he choose to eternal life those who he foresees will
believe. Rather, Gods decision has rendered it certain that every individual will act in a particular way. 7
The Arminian Position

Arminians, on the other hand, place a higher value upon human freedom God allows and expects man to
exercise the will he has been given. If this were not so, we would not find the biblical invitations to choose
God, the whosever will passages, such as Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest (Matt. 11:28). The very offering of such invitations implies that man can either accept or
reject them. There is a genuine possibility of both options. This, however, seems inconsistent with the
position that Gods decisions have rendered the future certain. If they had, there would be no point in
issuing invitations to man, for Gods decisions as to what would happen would come to pass regardless of
what man does. The Arminians therefore look for some other way of regarding the decisions of God.
The key lies in understanding the role of Gods foreknowledge in the formation and execution of the divine
plan. In Romans 8:29 Paul says, Whom he foreknew he also predestined. From this verse the Arminian
draws the conclusion that Gods choice or determination of each individuals destiny is a result of
foreknowledge. Thus, those who God foreknew would believe are those he decided would be saved. A
similar statement can be made of all human actions, of all other aspects of life for that matter. God knows
what all of us are going to do. He therefore wills what he foresees will happen. 8 Note that human action and
its effects are not a result of Gods decision. The human action is logically prior. On this basis, the concept
of human freedom is preserved. Every individual has genuine options. It is the human who renders his
actions certain; God simply acquiesces. One might therefore say that in the Arminian view this aspect of
Gods plan is conditional upon human decision; in the Calvinistic view, on the other hand, Gods plan is
unconditional. 8
The Intermediate Position

Because Erickson finds in the Scriptures evidence that the plan of God is unconditional
rather than conditional upon mans choice, he works to reconcile the Calvinistic and Arminian
perspectives and notices that there could be an intermediate theological perspective that gives
due consideration to Gods immutable plan but does not ignore or dismiss the human free will
and the God given freedom. States the scholar:
Despite difficulties in relating divine sovereignty to human freedom, we nonetheless come to the
conclusion on biblical grounds that the plan of God is unconditional rather than conditional upon mans
choice. There simply is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God chooses humans because of what they are
going to do on their own. The Arminian concept of foreknowledge (o), appealing though it is, is
not borne out by Scripture. The word means more than simply having advance knowledge or precognition
of what is to come. It appears to have in its background the Hebrew concept of ( yada), which often
meant more than simple awareness. It suggested a kind of intimate knowledgeit was even used of sexual
intercourse.9 When Paul says that God foreknew the people of Israel, he is not referring merely to an
advance knowledge which God had. Indeed, it is clear that Gods choice of Israel was not upon the basis of
advance knowledge of a favorable response on their part. Had God anticipated such a response, he would
certainly have been wrong. Note that in Romans 11:2 Paul says, God has not rejected his people whom he
foreknew, and that a discussion of the faithlessness of Israel follows. Certainly in this passage
foreknowledge must mean something more than advance knowledge. In Acts 2:23, foreknowledge is linked
with the will (o) of God. Moreover, in 1 Peter 1 we read that the elect are chosen according to the
foreknowledge of God (v. 2) and that Christ was foreknown from before the foundation of the world (v.
20). To suggest that foreknowledge here means nothing more than previous knowledge or acquaintance is
to virtually deprive these verses of any real meaning. We must conclude that foreknowledge as used in
Romans 8:29 carries with it the idea of favorable disposition or selection as well as advance knowledge.
Furthermore, there are passages where the conditional nature of Gods selecting plan is made quite explicit.
This is seen in Pauls statement regarding the choice of Jacob over Esau: Though they were not yet born
and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that Gods purpose of election might continue, not
because of works but because of his call [ o oo], she [Rebecca] was told, The elder will serve
the younger. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. (Rom 9:11-13). Pau seems to be taking
great pains to emphasize the unmerited or unconditional nature of Gods choice of Jacob. Later in the same
chapter Paul comments, So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of
whomever he wills. (v.18). The import of the subsequent image of the potter and the clay is very difficult
to escape (vv. 20-24). Similarly, Jesus told his disciples, You did not choose me, but I chose you and
appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide. (John 15:16). Because of
these and similar considerations, we must conclude that the plan of God is unconditional rather than
conditional upon actions of men which he has foreseen.
At this point we must raise the question of whether God can create genuinely free beings and yet render
certain all things that are to come to pass, including the free decisions and actions of those beings. The key
to unlocking the problem is the distinction between rendering something certain and rendering it necessary.
The former is a matter of Gods decision that something will happen; the latter is a matter of his decreeing
that it must occur. In the former case, the human being will not act in a way contrary to the course of action
which God has chosen; in the latter case, the human being cannot act in a way contrary to what God has
chosen. What we are saying is that God renders it certain that a person who could act (or could have acted)
differently does in fact act in a particular way (the way that God wills). 10
What does it mean to say that I am free? It means that I am not under constraint. Thus, I am free to do
whatever pleases me. But am I free with respect to what pleases me and what does not? To put it
differently, I may choose one action over another because it holds more appeal for me. But I am not fully in
control of the appeal which each of those actions holds for me. That is quite a different matter. I make all
my decisions, but those decisions are in large measure influenced by certain characteristics of mine which I
am not capable of altering by my own choice. If, for example, I am offered for dinner a choice between
liver and steak, I am quite free to take the liver, but I do not desire to do so. I have no conscious control
over my dislike of liver. That is a given that goes with my being the person I am. In that respect my
freedom is limited. I do not know whether it is my genes or environmental conditioning which has caused
dislike of liver, but it apparent that I cannot by mere force of will alter this characteristic of mine.
There are then, limitations upon who I am and what I desire and will. I certainly did not choose the genes
that I have; I did not select my parents nor the exact geographical location and cultural setting of my birth.
My freedom, therefore, is within these limitations. And here arises the question: Who set up these factors?
The theistic answer is, God did. I am free to choose among various options. But my choices will be
influenced by who I am. Therefore, my freedom must be understood as my ability to choose among options
in light of who I am. And who I am is a result of Gods decision and activity. God is in control of all the
circumstances that bear upon my situation in life. He may bring to bear (or permit to be brought to bear)
factors which will make a particular option appealing, even powerfully appealing, to me. Through all the
factors that have come into my experience in time past he has influenced the type of person I am now.
Indeed, he has affected what has come to pass by willing that it was I who was brought into being.
Whenever a child is conceived, there are an infinite number of possibilities. A countless variety of genetic
combinations may emerge out of the union of sperm and ovum. We do not know why a particular
combination actually results. But now, for the sake of argument, let us consider the possibility of a
hypothetical individual whose genetic combination differs infinitesimally from my own. He is identical to
me in every respect; in every situation of life he responds as I do. But at one particular point he will choose
to move his finger to the left whereas I will move mine to the right. I am not compelled to move my finger
to the right, but I freely choose to do so. Now by making sure that it was I, and not my hypothetical double,
who came into existence, and setting the circumstances of my life, God rendered it certain that at one
particular point I would freely move my finger to the right.
This is in many ways similar to the argument of Gottfried von Leibniz in his Theodicy.11 God knows all of
the infinite possibilities. He chooses which of these he will actualize. And by meticulously selecting the
very individuals he brings into existence, individuals who will respond to specific stimuli exactly as he
intends, and by making sure these specific factors are present, he renders certain the free decisions and
actions of those individuals. Where our view differs from Leibnizs view is that we see the decisions of
God as completely free in this matter, not in any sense determined. Furthermore, in rendering human action
certain, God does not merely choose to bring a being into existence and then leave him to function in a
mechanistic, determined world. God is actively at work within this world, influencing what takes place.
Thus, the deistic overtones of Leibnizs view are avoided.
The position being advocated here is what B. B. Warfield regarded as the most diluted form of Calvinism
(there are, in fact, some Calvinists who would deny that is deserves to be called Calvinistic at all). Warfield
termed his position congruism, for it holds that God works congruously with the will of the individual;
that is, God works in such a suasive way with the will of the individual that he freely makes the choice that
God intends.12 With respect to the offer of salvation, this means that God does not begin by regenerating
those he has chosen, transforming their souls so that they believe; rather, he works in an appealing,
persuading fashion so that they freely choose to believe, and then he regenerates them. What we are adding
to this position is the idea that God is operative in the life of the individual long before his work of suasion
and regeneration: God has from eternity decided that the potential individual who comes into actual
existence is the one who will respond to this set of circumstances precisely as God intends.
Is Gods having rendered human decisions and actions certain compatible with human freedom? How one
responds depends on his understanding of freedom. According to the position we are espousing, the answer
to the question, could the individual have chosen differently? is yes, while the answer to the question,
But would he have? is no. In our understanding, for human freedom to exist, only the first question need
be answered in the affirmative. But others would argue that human freedom exists only if both questions
can be answered in the affirmative; that is, if the individual not only could have chosen differently, but
could also have desired to choose differently. In their view, freedom means spontaneity, random choice.
We would point out to them that when it comes to human decisions and actions, nothing is completely
spontaneous or random. There is a measure of predictability with respect to human behavior; and the better
we know an individual, the better we can anticipate his responses. For example, a good friend or relative
might say, I knew you were going to say that. Television networks can project the outcome of elections
by analyzing returns from a few bellwether precincts. We conclude that if by freedom is meant random
choice, human freedom is a practical impossibility. But if by freedom is meant ability to choose between
options, human freedom exists and is compatible with Gods having rendered our decisions and actions
certain.
It should be noted that if certainty of outcome is inconsistent with freedom, divined foreknowledge, as the
Arminian understands that term, presents as much difficulty for human freedom as does divine
foreordination. For if God knows what I will do, it must be certain that I am going to do it. If it were not
certain, God could not know it; he might be mistaken (I might act differently from what he expects). But if
what I will do is certain, then surely I will do it, whether or not I know what I will do. It will happen! But
am I then free? In the view of those whose definition of freedom entails the implication that it cannot be
certain that a particular event will occur, presumably I am not free. In their view, divine foreknowledge is
just as incompatible with human freedom as is divine foreordination.
It might seem that the divine choice we have argued for is the same as the Arminian idea of foreknowledge.
There is a significant difference, however. In the Arminian understanding, there is a foreknowledge of
actual existing entities. God simply chooses to confirm, as it were, what he foresees real individuals will
decide and do. In our scheme, however, God has a foreknowledge of possibilities. God foresees what
possible beings will do if placed in a particular situation with all the influences that will be present at that
point in time and space. On this basis he chooses which of the possible individuals will become actualities
and which circumstances and influences will be present. He foreknows what these individuals will freely
do, for he in effect made that decision by choosing them in particular to bring into existence. With respect
to salvation, this means that, in logical order, God decided that he would create humans, that they would
fall, and then that among this group who would be brought into existence, all of whom would come under
the course of sin, some individuals would, acting as he intends, freely choose to respond to him. 13
Our position that God has rendered certain everything that occurs raises another question: Is there not a
contradiction at certain points between what God commands and says he desires and what he actually
wills? For example, sin is universally prohibited, yet apparently god wills for it to occur. Certainly murder
is prohibited in Scripture, and yet the death of Jesus by execution was apparently willed by God (Luke
22:22; Acts 2:23). Further, we are told that God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet
apparently he does not actually will for all to be saved, since not everyone is saved. How are we to
reconcile these seemingly contradictory considerations?
We must distinguish between two different senses of Gods will, which we will refer to as Gods wish
(will1) and Gods will (will2). The former is Gods general intention, the values with which he is pleased.
The latter is Gods specific intention in a given situation, what he decides shall actually occur. There are
times, many of them, when God wills to permit, and thus to have occur, what he really does not wish. This
is the case with sin. God does not desire sin to occur. There are occasions, however, when he simply says,
in effect, So be it, allowing a human to choose freely a sinful course of action. Josephs treatment at the
hands of his brothers did not please God; it was not consistent with what he is like. God did, however, will
to permit it; he did not intervene to prevent it. And interestingly enough, God used their action to produce
the very thing it was intended to preventJosephs ascendancy.
God does not enjoy the destruction of the ungodly. It brings him sorrow. Yet he chooses to permit them, by
their own volition, to reject and disbelieve. Why he does this we do not know. But what we are talking
about here is not as unique and foreign to us as we might at first think. It is not unlike the way parents
sometimes treat their children. A mother may wish for her son to avoid a particular type of behavior and
may tell him so. Yet there are situations in which she may, unobserved by her son, see him about to engage
in the forbidden action, yet choose not to intervene to prevent it. Here is a case in which the parents wish is
clearly that the child not engage in certain behavior, yet her will is that he do what he has willed to do. By
choosing not to intervene to prevent the act, the mother is actually willing that it take place.
We must understand that the will of God permits rather than causes sin. God never says, Commit this sin!
But by his permitting the conditions which lead a person to commit sin and by his not preventing the sin,
God in effect wills the sin. If one maintains that failure to prevent something constitutes causation or
responsibility, then God would have to be regarded, in this secondary sense, as causing evil. But, we should
note, this is not the way that responsibility is usually assigned.
Another issue that must be examined concerns whether our view of the all-encompassing plan of God
removes incentives for activity on our part. If God has already rendered certain what is to occur, is there
any point in our seeking to accomplish his will? Does what we do really make any difference in what
happens? This issue relates particularly to evangelism. If God has already chosen (elected) who will be
saved and who will not, what difference does it make whether we (or anyone else for that matter) seek to
propagate the gospel? Nothing can change the fact that the elect will be saved and the nonelect will not.
Two points should be made by way of response. One is that if God has rendered certain the end, his plan
also includes the means to that end. His plan may well include that our witness is the means by which an
elect person will come to saving faith. Thus it is foreordained by God that we should witness to that person.
The other consideration is that we do not know in detail what Gods plan is. So we must proceed on the
basis of what God has revealed of his wish. Accordingly, we must witness. This may mean that some of our
time is spent on someone who will not ultimately enter the kingdom of heaven. But that does not mean that
our time has been wasted. It may well have been the means to fulfilling another part of Gods plan. And
ultimately it is faithfulness, not success, that is Gods measure of our service. 9
The above theological perspective that Erickson describes as diluted Calvinism, and
that represents an intermediate position between orthodox Calvinism and positive Arianism
about the interaction between Gods plan and His foreknowledge on one hand, and the human
will on the other hand, appears to reduce the tension between the Divine intervention in human
affairs and the human freedom. The scholars detailed discussion on the topic should help the
readers understand the complex and intricate issues that theologians and scholars face in their
prophetic interpretations, and should also provide enough logical and biblical evidence to cancel
the notion that either as individuals or as social groups (tribes, nations, empires, etc.) humans are
simple spectators to events on a world stage in Gods historic panorama who watch the
divine foreknowledge unfold the course of the future.10
The notion that Daniel 2, 7, and 8 are unconditional11 eschatological predictions with
the humans as figurines in the historical sandbox appears to eliminate human freedom and will
and seems to affirm the Calvinistic predestination that transfers from the individual level to the
group level in the prophetic utterances and abandons the human situations and actions in their
entire multifaceted structure to God as an authoritarian despot, while the humans become from
the same perspective even less than puppets frozen and inactive creatures. Such perspective
cannot be reconciled with the Bible because it is a deductive theoretical construct that did not
start with Gods word but with tenuous philosophical deductions and then used and distorted
certain biblical texts to accommodate and defend it.
III. Conditional Prophecies in the Bible

The Mistaken Prophetic Classification
From the traditional SDA interpretation perspective, not all Old Testament prophetic
literature is of an identical nature.1 The claim is that there is a distinction between (1) general2
or classical3 prophecies represented for example, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, et cetera,4 and
(2) apocalyptic5, 6 prophecies, such as in Daniel.7 Another straight distinction has been made
between conditional8 and unconditional9 prophecies. The general or classical prophecies
have been claimed to be conditional,10 while the apocalyptic prophecies have been
pronounced to be unconditional.11
This prophetic misclassification has been based on assumptive logic rather than empirical
and reliable biblical data, as Johnson himself acknowledges when he states that most
predictions which have been viewed in the past by Seventh-day Adventists as conditional on
Israels obedience are not prophecies at all in the real sense of the term but are based on the
known promises and judgments (blessings/curses) which natural arise out of the covenant
relationship god formed with Israel, and therefore the conditions are built into the promises
and threatenings of the covenant. For this reason, it is misleading to extend this term and
perspective to non-covenantal predictions.12
Similar definition errors have been committed about the prophecies contained in Daniel
and Revelation, and the interpretation consequences are multiple and unfortunate. This critical
matter will be discussed in the documents next section that deals with the presumed and
speculated unconditional and inevitable13 prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10-12, and
provides evidence that the Calvinistic predestination notion that God has fixed the historic
future and has left no choice to humans in the matter cannot be substantiated from the Bible, and
should be discarded as erroneous and dangerous because it presents an unbiblical and distorted
perspective about Gods character and remakes Him from the false SDA historicist perspective.
The Conditional Prophecies Defined
From Johnssons hermeneutical perspective, conditional prophecies are those biblical
predictions whose fulfillment is dependent on the action or reaction of human beings,14 while
the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia [further, SDAE] completes the definition and adds the
relevant and important fact that generally speaking, the promises and predictions sent through
the OT [Old Testament] prophets to literal Israel were to have been fulfilled to them on condition
of obedience and loyalty. 15 Relative to the prophetic conditions Allis remarks that:
It is to be observed that a condition may be involved in a command or promise without its being
specifically stated [emphasis added]. This is illustrated by the career of Jonah. Jonah was commanded to
preach judgment, unconditioned, unqualified: Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. Yet
Jonah later declares, in explanation and extenuation of his disgraceful conduct, that he had assumed from
the very first that God would spare the city if the people repented (even at the cost of making Jonah appear
to be a false prophet); and the outcome proved the surmise to be correct. The unstated condition was
presupposed in the very character of God as a God of mercy and compassion (iv. 2). The judgment on Elis
house (1 Sam. ii. 30) is a very striking illustration of this principle, which is carefully stated in Jer. xviii. 1
10.16
The interpreters must also be aware that some conditional prophecies seem to indicate
the fact that God changes His mind. This happens often in the OT prophecies in which the
fulfillment will be reward in case of obedience or destruction in case of rebellion.17 In these
cases, the Biblical exegetes must understand that,
When God lets a prophetic word fall to the ground (I Sam. iii. 19), this proves its falsity (Deut. xviii. 21
22). The fulfilment differs, however, according to the character and purpose of the prophecy. Where the
emphasis is laid upon the external form and a near term is indicated for a special judgment, whether of an
individual or a people, it necessarily follows that the fulfilment must be literal, if the sayings are genuine
But these sayings do not always contain an unalterable judgment of God; indeed, as a rule, the menacing
prophecy is intended to produce a change of the peoples heart; if this purpose was attained, Gods attitude
was modified and his sentence was no longer to be executed (as in Jonahs experience with Nineveh, cf.
Jonah iv. 2; Jer. xxvi. 1819).18
Uninformed and Misdirected Criticism

Under the subtitle, Conditional Prophecy in Recent Adventist Writings,19 Johnsson
launches himself into a harsh but gratuitous critique about the SDABC article with the title The
Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy. His critique indicates that he is much less informed
than he arrogates to be about (1) how conditional prophecies are discussed in the SDA literature
he examines, and about (2) the authors who have written on the issue. His deplorable ignorance
leads him to misdirect his unwarranted criticism and misinform the readers. He states:
The 1974 North American Bible Conferences briefly touched on the subject of conditional prophecy in four
of its presentations.4 It was affirmed that Adventists always had held to the principle of conditional
prophecy. Furthermore, it was observed that the conditionality principle had protected the church from
gauging the nearness of the End on the basis of events that affected the recently established nation of Israel.
However, none of the expositions actually explored the biblical evidence for defining the nature and
function of conditional prophecy.
Probably the most thorough attempt by Adventists to explain the nature of conditional prophecy is the
article, The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy, in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.5
The unsigned essay sets out to interpret the divine promises made to ancient Israel by the prophets and
boldly states, It is and undeniable historical fact that, to this day, the majority of these predictions have not
been fulfilled.6
The Commentary explanation is wholly in terms of conditionality. Rejecting other schools of thought, it
states: Seventh-day Adventists believe that, generally speaking, the promises and predictions given
through the Old Testament prophets originally applied to literal Israel and were to have been fulfilled to
them on the condition that they obey God and remain loyal to Him. But the Scriptures record the fact that
they disobeyed God and proved disloyal to Him instead. Accordingly, what He purposed to do for the
world through Israel of old he will finally accomplish through His church on earth today, and many of the
promises originally made to Israel will be fulfilled to His remnant people at the close of time. 7
The body of the article develops the five ideas of this principle: Israel as Gods chosen people, the ideal
how the plan was to operate, Israels failure to carry out Gods plan, why Israel failed, and spiritual Israel
as the replacement of literal Israel. As a conclusion, the article sets out rules for approaching the study of
OT prophetic passages. Four suggestions are given: the prophecy is to be examined in its entirety that its
meaning to the people of its own time may be determined; conditional aspects of the prediction should be
ascertained; the application of the prophecy made by later inspired writers must be observed; and the
significance of the passageits message for todayis to be sought.
By far the most fascinating aspect of the article is its portrayal of the what-might-have- been. It pictures
an obedient nation of Israel, even after the Exile, the focus of worlds attention. This nation prepares the
whole world for the coming of the Messiah. Messiah comes, dies, rises again, with Jerusalem as a great
missionary center to set the earth ablaze with the light of truth in one grand, final appeal to those who had
not as yet accepted the invitation of divine mercy. 8 After the final call, those who refused allegiance to
God would unite in efforts to take Jerusalem but God would wipe them out, leaving a world of obedient
subjects of Yahweh.
There is no Second Coming in this scenario. There is no millennial period or new Jerusalem. The envisaged
time span is short: the first advent is soon followed by the establishment of Messiahs eternal kingdom. The
portrayal of the futurethe might-have-beenforms the thrust of the entire article. It is the result of the
rigorous application of the conditionality principle.
It comes as a shock to the reader, then, to find at the very close of the article an insertion of an explanatory
sentence enclosed in parentheses to the effect that some prophecies may apply exclusively to our own day.
The sentence, standing in direct contrast to the thesis of the essay, states, This rule does not apply to the
portions of the Book of Daniel that the prophet was bidden to shut up and seal, or to other passages
whose application Inspiration may have limited exclusively to our own time. 9 Apparently the
conditionality principle has to be modified at some point!
Indeed, the major criticism to be raised against the article is that it has oversimplified the interpretation of
prophecy. Its hermeneutic is too wooden, too speculative. 10 It takes a valid idea but has pressed it to the
point where the thesis no longer becomes tenable.20
Those who know Johnsson from a distance would take the SDA scholar at his word and
would be gullible enough to believe that, indeed, the theologian was unaware about who wrote
the article he has critiqued. Others would find impossible to accept that Johnsson, who was
alleged to be a foremost SDA scholar at the time when he contributed to the DARCOM series
would be unable to do a little research and learn who had been the SDABC author. Even less
plausible and acceptable seems to be Johnssons alleged ignorance about the parenthetical
statement included in the unknown writers article and which stands in direct contrast to the
thesis, or the main idea in the document.
The Daniel and Revelation Committee [further, DARCOM] series volume 3 had been
published in 1986, and contained Johnssons claim included in the quotation above that (1) the
article The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy was unsigned, that is, with no known
author, and (2) that the unknown author had contradicted himself in a parenthetical sentence
located at the end of the article and that had suspended the conditional attribute for some
prophecies in Daniel.21 A few months earlier, however, Spectrum had published the article
entitled The Untold Story of the Bible Commentary, where Cottrell had revealed the puzzle
that tarnished the article Johnsson had critiqued. Narrates Thompson:
That fear of a monumental earthquake, probably links up with Ellen Whites decision never to publish or
use her astonishing statement on conditionalism. It also may explain the fate of the other lost-and found
item, the 1955 article entitled The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy, an article that is scarcely
known among Adventists today, even though it caused quite a stir when it was first published. Given
everything that is happening in our changing world, we should ask if the time has come for Adventists to
take that quotation and that article seriously and to renew our study of the minor prophets, especially Joel,
Jonah, and Zechariah.
The story behind the article, indeed behind the writing of the whole SDA Bible Commentary, was told by
Raymond Cottrell, associate editor of the SDABC, and published in 1985 in Spectrum as The Untold
Story of the Bible Commentary.7 Cottrell was also the one who actually wrote the article, The Role of
Israel in Old Testament Prophecy.
The Commentary article concludes with a summary of rules for interpreting Old Testament prophetic
passages, rules that resulted in a sketch of Gods original plan for Israel, relying heavily on Zechariah 14
and supported by Ellen Whites statement on conditionalism. This original plan focused on a renewed
Jerusalem in Israel which would have become a center for evangelism; the world would have been attracted
to Gods people because of their prosperity; the Messiah would have come and died, but would have been
accepted by his people; evil would have gradually disappeared. 8 All that is largely driven by this first rule:
Examine the prophecy in its entirety. Note by whom it was spoken, to whom it was addressed, and the
circumstances that called it forth. Remember that generally speaking it was originally given with
respect to the historical circumstances that called it forth. It was ordained of God to meet the needs of His
people at the time it was given and to remind them of the glorious destiny that awaited them as a nation, of
the coming of the Messiah, and of the establishment of His eternal kingdom. Discover what the message
meant to the people of that time.9
But at the end of that first rule, F. D. Nichol, the overall editor of the Bible Commentary and editor of The
Adventist Review, out of overriding pastoral concern, according to Cottrell, added this parenthetical
comment: (This rule does not apply to those portions of the book of Daniel that the prophet was bidden to
shut up and seal, or to other passages whose application Inspiration may have limited exclusively to our
own time.)10 22
Thompson was on the mark about the issue that had perplexed Johnsson. Indeed, in his
article The Untold Story of the Bible Commentary, Cottrell reveals to the readers who inserted
the parenthetical statement in the document he had written and for what reason:
The Old Testament prophets are loaded with booby traps for the inexperienced and unwary. While we were
editing Volume 4, I suggested to Elder Nichol that a discussion of principles for interpreting Old Testament
predictive prophecy would be desirable. With his blessing, I wrote the article, The Role of Israel in Old
Testament Prophecy (Vol. 4, pp 25-38), which affirms that the predictive prophecies of the Old Testament
were originally addressed to literal Israel under the covenant and were to have been fulfilled to them had
they remained faithful to their covenant obligations and accepted the Messiah when he came.
Prior to editing the comment on Daniel, both Don and I thought of the books of Daniel as an exception to
this otherwise universal rule, but editing the comment on Daniel convinced both of uscontrary to our
previous opinionsthat this principle applies to the book of Daniel as well. Elder Nichols overriding
pastoral concern, however, led him to insert the parenthetical caveat on page 38 exempting the book of
Daniel that the prophet was bidden to shut up and seal, or to other passages whose application
Inspiration may have limited exclusively to our time. This was one of only two or three occasions when
Elder Nichol exercised his prerogative as editor-in-chief to override our editorial judgment. 23
That the parenthetical statement in direct contrast to the thesis in Cottrells document
shocks Johnsson is not difficult to understand, but that the scholar makes no effort to find out
who is the SDABC articles writer and obtain a reasonable explanation for the bizarre sentence
included there is unacceptable when we consider that the information was not privileged but
available to the public, and read the high claims the SDA theologians and scholars have made
about the DARCOM series and their expertise. Excited about the books in the now notorious
series, for instance, Davidson defines their content as the powerful research of the Daniel and
Revelation Committee.24 To send to the SDA members such misinformation and at the same
time to maintain that the DARCOM Series is the best theological research the SDA scholars
have ever produced is utter nonsense. The same can be said about Johnssons preposterous claim
that the major criticism to be raised against the article is that is has oversimplified the
interpretation of prophecy25 while he provides no factual support for his tirade.
Poor Research on Bible Conditionals

The undeniable fact is that Cottrells article on Gods prophetic covenant with Israel and
the Chosen Peoples failure to deliver on the covenants requirements is the best document that
has even been written in the SDA theological circles about the OT covenantal prophecies and
their conditional aspect. Johnsson is compelled to acknowledge this disgraceful situation when
he completes his SDA literature review and concludes that there is inadequate and irrelevant
research on the conditionals in the Bible and that there are more problems and questions than
answers in what the SDA scholars have produced so far. He states:
Several other articles in the Commentary deserve brief mention. In History of the Interpretation of
Daniel11 the conditionality principle does not figure prominently. In conflict with the thesis of the former
article, we read of the determining hand of God in history and His control of world affairs, of the
timetable of the centuries.12 The sealed portion of Daniel concerns the last days, and 1260 actual
years in the Christian era are prophesied in Daniel 7.1326
How Johnsson has reached the ridiculous conclusion that in History of the Interpretation
of Daniel the writers claims and arguments come in conflict with the thesis of the former
article, which is Cottrells essential article on The Role of Israel in the Old Testament
Prophecy, is another puzzle this time without a rational solution, except when we suspect that
Johnsson might not have spent too much time to read Cottrells article and had rushed to put on
paper what he had assumed that Cottrell had stated. A little more attention to detail would have
brought Johnsson to the correct conclusion that there is no demonstrable conflict between what
Froom27 had stated in his article (History of the Interpretation of Daniel28) and what Cottrell
had written in his document on The Role of Israel in the Old Testament Prophecy29 because
Cottrell had started his article on the conditional covenantal threats and blessings to Israel with
the following paragraph:
THIS article surveys the fundamental problem of the interpretation of the prophetic portions of the Old
Testament in terms of their message to Israel of old and to the church today. Consideration is given to the
role of literal Israel as Gods chosen people [emphasis added], to the way His plan for them was to
have been accomplished [emphasis added], to the way in which it actually did work out, and to the
eventual transfer of the privileges and responsibilities of literal Israel to spiritual Israel, that is, to the
Christian church. A clear understanding of these aspects of the problem is essential to the formulation of a
valid procedure for interpreting the messages of the Old Testament prophets. Any interpretation that fails to
give these matters due consideration does violence to the Scriptures.30
The SDA historicists failure to see the parallelism between Cottrells and Frooms article
is more evidence for the amateur work the DARCOM experts have claimed to be the best
theological work since the gangster scheme at Glacier View. The pathetic manner in which all
the seven volumes in the DARCOM Series fail to provide adequate empirical support for the
traditional SDA dogmas is so obvious that a good idea would be for the church to withdraw these
books from the Adventist publications market.
More Research on the Elusive Conditional
The other documents Johnsson reviews produce similar disappointments because their
content is short and unfocussed, and fails to provide rigorous documentation for the dogmatic
and incorrect SDA perspective on the claimed conditional and unconditional prophecies that are
assumed to populate the Bible. Continues the inexpert theologian:
The comments on Deuteronomy 18:1514 suggest four classes of prediction [sic!]: relating to the immediate
historical situation, exclusively to the Messiah, to the remote future (the Christian era), or having dual
application. This discussion also touches on the matter of Gods foreknowledge. The Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Dictionary article on prophet15 gives general suggestions for interpreting Bible prophecy.
A document prepared more recently for consideration by the Sanctuary Review Committee 1980)
demonstrates a thoroughgoing application of the conditionality idea to all Bible prophecy. 16 Although the
study involves several hermeneutical foci, conditionality plays a major role. It builds on the SDA Bible
Commentary article on the role of Israel in OT prophecy but does not back off as the Commentary article
does from the book of Daniel. Old Testament and NT, general prophecy and apocalyptic, 2,300 days and
the Second Coming all predictions are treated consistently under the role of conditionality.
It is not our purpose to embark on an extended critique of this document. We may observe that the work
does have the merits of a rigorous consistency, at least in application of conditionality as a hermeneutical
key to interpreting biblical prophecy. In our study here, however, we have to ask the question that the study
does not whether conditionality can be raised to such prominence, whether, in fact, it can bear the weight
of the biblical data.
We close our brief survey of recent Adventist writing pertinent to our subject by extracting a statement
from another paper prepared for the Sanctuary Review Committee (1980).17 It is essential that we do not
force upon apocalyptic [prophecy] the dual-fulfillment, two-foci model that applies to various prophecies in
the general-prophecy category.18 General prophecy (sometimes designated as classical prophecy) is
concerned primarily with the prophets own time and occasionally with the end-time. On the other hand
apocalyptic prophecy sees history as a continuum culminating in the final events of earth. Although the
paper just cited does not address conditional prophecy specifically, the distinction drawn between these two
kinds of prophecy is important for establishing a sound hermeneutic for interpreting apocalyptic
prophecy.31
The above comments seem to be less even than a poor theological pastiche unrelated
and disparate pieces that attempt to create the false impression that the SDA theologians have
produced some rigorous research on the conditional prophecies, and that from these amateurish
pieces we can reach some reliable conclusions about prophetic interpretation. To the question
that Johnson has posedthat iswhether or not conditionality can be raised to such
prominence, whether, in fact, it can bear the weight of the biblical data, the counter question
that is required for adequate and appropriate balance in prophetic interpretation is whether or not
non-conditionalityas prescribed in a liberal manner in the SDA interpretation on Daniel and
Revelationcould be supported with biblical data or it is simple speculation and text distortion.
Strands gratuitous and tendentious caveat that it is essential that we do not force
[emphasis added] upon apocalyptic [prophecy] the dual-fulfillment, two-foci model that applies
to various prophecies in the general-prophecy category,32 has no scientific empirical basis and
begs the question because it assumes, without evidence, the false conclusion that apocalyptic
prophecies cannot have dual fulfillment. The response should be another caveat, that we should
not force [emphasis added] a single focus model on apocalyptic prophecies before we have
concluded through rigorous studies that apocalyptic prophecies are so different from the classical
prophecies that unique and special rules must be applied to their interpretation.
These attempts on Johnssons part to piece together useless historicist SDA work on the
conditional in the Bible fail because even now one fails to discover a rational and dependable
classification on the prophecies in the Bible, and adequate definitions for the conditional and
the unconditional. Absent the classification and definitions, the SDA theologians and
researchers have drifted in the unknown and have never been able to establish a powerful
theological basis for these topics. In fact, it is Johnsson himself who recognizes these problems
and points to them. It is unfortunate, though, that his attempts to put some order in the
theological SDA conditional vs. non-conditional mess also fail. States the confused historicist:
Several conclusions emerge from our study of Adventist literature on the interpretation of Bible prophecy:
1. Conditionality as a principle for interpreting biblical prophecy is basic to Adventist hermeneutics.
2. This principle in fact sets us apart from other Christians in the interpretation of Bible prophecy.
3. While Adventists assume conditionality in their hermeneutics, there has been no fully satisfactory
elaboration of the principle [emphasis added].
4. The attempt to apply rigorously the conditionality principle as the key to Bible prophecy runs into
difficulties [emphasis added].
5. The relationship of conditionality to Gods sovereignty and foreknowledge has not been worked
through [emphasis added].
6. The impact of the type of prophecygeneral or apocalypticon conditionality has not been taken
up [emphasis added]. 33
The above statements make it clear that although Johnsson refers without adequate and
empirical statistical confirmation to an unconditional principle that would govern prophecies
in the Bible, he (1) cannot define the principle, (2) has no idea what that it is, and (3) has no
factual evidence for it. For the above reasons the principles application to various biblical
prophecies runs into difficulties, because the SDA scholars have not figured out what impact
the principle would have, when applied on the classical and apocalyptic prophecies in the
Bible, and how would Gods plan for man, Gods foreknowledge, and mans free will operate
together without irreconcilable and irremediable conflicts.
Verdicts and Forecasts in A Bad Mix
From this statement that indicates the insoluble maize in which the SDA theologians have
been stuck, Johnson moves to introduce order and clarification to the issue, but he cannot
reach too far in his efforts. The subtitles to his unprofessional, inadequate, and defective article
indicate that he deals in predictions, more predictions, and even more predictions. Those
subtitles are Predictions to Israel That Arise Out of a Covenant Context,34 Short-Term
Predictions,35 Long-Term Predictions,36 and Predictions of the First Advent of Christ.37
Covenantal Prophecies
The first conditional prophetic group, in Johnssons perspective, includes the
Predictions to Israel That Arise Out of a Covenant Context, and in this short and incomplete
section he does no more than reiterate what Cottrell had stated in the section IV., Israels
Failure to Carry Out Gods Plan, from his article The Role of Israel in Old Testament
Prophecy,38 States the SDA theologian:
Probably the large majority of predictions that fall under general prophecy belong here. The eight-and
seventh-century B.C. prophets rebuke [emphasis added] the people of Israel for their sins, calling them
back to Yahweh, warning [emphasis added] them of impending doom because of their unfaithfulness to
the covenant.
The first chapter of Isaiah provides a classic illustration. Israel is arraigned [emphasis added] before God,
who calls heaven and earth to witness (vs.2). Yahwehs complaint is that His people are guilty of gross
stupidity. Although He has nurtured them tenderly, they do not display even the elemental gratitude of an
ox or an ass (vss. 2-3). Their failure to live within the covenant is demonstrated by their unethical practices
(vss. 4, 15, 17, 21-23) and religious observances that are merely formal (vss. 11-14). Because of Israels
sins the land has been devastated (vss. 5-9), ad Yahweh has punished national transgression. Yet He has not
cast them off utterly. He has left a remnant (vs. 9). Now He calls them back to the covenant: Come now,
and let us reason together, (vs.18). Because Yahweh is a covenant-keeping God, One who remains
faithful despite mankinds unfaithfulness, because His lovingkindness (hesed) is at the heart of the
covenant, there is hope for Israelforgiveness and restoration [emphasis added] (vss. 25-27).
Israels history, through the OT time exhibits an oscillatory pattern. Prosperity, apostasy, decline,
repentance, restorationthis is the cycle we find in Judges, Kings, and Chronicles. The principle governing
the pattern is, If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye
shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it (Isa 1:19-20, KJV).
It is therefore possible to view Israels history in its various fortunes as a reflection of the truth of
Deuteronomy 28. This passage sets out the two ways that lie before the young nation. If the people will
hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments, they
will be blessed richlymaterially, nationally, spiritually (vss. 1-14, KJV). If, however, they are unfaithful
to the covenant provisions, terrible curses [emphasis added] will come upon them, until Israel is a byword
among the nations (vss. 15-68).
Over and over again the prophets speak to a sinful nation in terms of these blessings and curses. Are they
words, however, to be considered predictive prophecy [emphasis added]?
That the element of conditionality is present is self-evident: the peoples response determines the outcome.
That the words are prophecy, in the sense of a message from Yahweh, is also truethe prophets are
conscious of a divine impelling. But we should not consider such messages predictive prophecy in the
sense of disclosing a future otherwise unknown. Rather, they are applying the law of the covenant,
something as fixed as Yahweh Himself.
The element of prediction here is no stronger than in a NT parallel: He that believeth on him is not
condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18, KJV). We are dealing with certainties, with the very plan of God
for mankind. It is laid down by Him and cannot be negotiated.
I therefore suggest that we should regard predictions in this first class as covenant promises or threats
[emphasis added] rather than as conditional prophecy.19 To do so will clear the ground immediately for
more accurate understanding of those prophecies that truly unveil the future. Furthermore, it will remove
from the OT a large section of what has been designated unfulfilled prophecy. 39
Stern Threats and Generous Promises

The points Johnsson argues for in this documents section are much too transparent and
obvious to be clarified. The SDA scholar is redundant and irrelevant because the biblical
examples he has provided fall into two obvious categories, (1) divine threats, and (2) divine
promises, and each prophetic cluster has its own verdicts. When God checks His peoples status
in relation to their covenant with Him, He also decides whether there is need for stern rebukes
and threats, or rather generous promises. The Divine promises will bring with them reward
verdicts, while the ignored rebukes will result in threats and then in punishment verdicts.
The verdicts that God pronounces depend on Israels reaction to Gods covenantal
demandson their obedience or disobedience. To state that the Divine verdicts are conditional
on Israels faithful obedience is more than redundantit is platitudinous. To wonder if these
Divine messages are predictive reveals that the writer is unable to make a clear distinction
between (1) Gods predictions or forecasts that are based on Gods eternal plan for mankind
and His foreknowledge, and, (2) on the other side, His conditional actions related to the
covenantal relationship He has established between Himself and His People. To wonder whether
or not there would be prophetic fulfillment or failure on Gods part in this conditional
covenantal context indicates how unacquainted with the present topic the SDA historicist is and
how unprepared to understand the issues that we have considered in this documents section.
Gods Plan for Gentiles
The next issue Johnsson considers in his discussion on conditional prophecies is that
related to surrounding nations and, in some cases, individuals.40 Here, the SDA historicist
examines conditionality in tension with divine sovereignty,41 and reaches the mistaken
conclusion that God has no covenant with the Gentiles and He does not deal with them based on
conditions but rather, it seems, from a Calvinistic perspective. The Gentiles seem to have been
predestined to an unconditional fate because conditionality is mentioned in none of these
predictions.42 Johnssons conclusion should come as a shock to the reader,to use his own
words43 because he appears to contradict himself. The OT prophecies he examines are not
apocalyptic predictions that, he states later, do not hinge on conditionality. 44 How should we
understand his present counter statement that even classical or general prophecies45 are not based
on conditions? Johnsson appears to be confused about the issue, and this is obvious from the
statements he makes below:
There are many short-term OT predictions which do not come within the promises/threats of the covenant
relationship. They involve surrounding nations and, in some cases, individuals.
Although Yahweh has entered into covenant relation with one nationIsraelHe is nonetheless Lord of
the world. He does not condemn wickedness among His special people only to wink at it among the
surrounding nations. Therefore, they too come under judgment (for example, Isa 13-23; Jer 46-51; Ezek 2532; Amos 1-2). The predictions concerning Israels neighbors are not as clearcut in interpretation as
the covenant promises/threats to Israel, however [emphasis added].
We must now consider conditionality in tension with divine sovereignty.
The Jonah case provides the sharpest example of conditionality [emphasis added], as we already have
seen. The change in the people leads to change in the divine plan (3:9). The final verse of the book
underscores the character of Yahweh which ensures both justice and mercy in all His dealings. And should
not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern
between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? (4:11, KJV).
Yahweh does not destroy capriciously. Although Israels neighbors are outside the covenant [emphasis
added], the God of all the earth will deal justly in whatever He brings upon them. We may be sure then
when a nation goes down to ruin, it is ultimately because of its gross wickedness [emphasis added].20
The example of Nineveh is not typical of the prophecies concerning the nations, however. From Isaiah to
Malachi there is no other instance of a prophets being sent to deliver in person the word of doom. 21 How
the nations heard the divine threatenings (perhaps through ambassadors at times; cf. Isa 21; Jer 27) or if
they always heard, we are not told. The manner in which we find these dire predictions is often in the
setting of divine certainty: Yahweh has determined that retribution cannot be delayed.
Consider two striking examples from Isaiahs predictions about the nations. In chapter 10 we meet the
dramatic O Asyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand in mine indignation (vs. 5, KJV).
Here Asyria is Gods appointed instrument to chastise Israel. But haughty Assyria itself will come to an
end after the divine purpose is fulfilled (vss. 12-19). With this prediction we have gone beyond
conditionality and are in the realm of divine sovereignty [emphasis added].
The second example is that of Cyrus (44:28; 45:1-6). Here is a heathen king called by name (vs. 4) before
his birth so that Yahwehs plan to restore Israel from Babylonian captivity may come to fruition. Is this a
conditional prophecy? Is it not rather to be interpreted in terms of Gods foreknowledge and
sovereignty? [emphasis added].
We do not find as many short-term predictions in the NT, but there are some. Agabus foretells the famine
(Acts 11:28); the friends of Paul foresee by the Spirit the bonds that await him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:23;
21:10-11). The most significant short-term prediction, however, is the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction
of the temple (Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21).
Conditionality is mentioned in none of these predictions. With Paul, the only if lies in the decision to go
or not to go to Jerusalem. There is no hint that the impending fall of Jerusalem is conditional [emphasis
added]. The question is only, When shall these things be? (Matt 24:3, KJV).
It is obvious, therefore, that when interpreting short-term predictions outside the covenant provisions
we cannot confine our considerations merely to the principle of conditional prophecy. Indeed,
conditionality may not in fact be a significant element in the interpretation [emphasis added]. 46
The Gentiles and the Divine Covenant

The SDA theologians claims in the paragraphs above have no biblical basis, and are
wrong on multiple counts. In the first place, he claims that the Gentiles were outside the
covenant provisions47 in the OT. Concerning this issue, Petegrew states:
Even the blessings promised to Gentiles were routed through the nation of Israel. From the beginning of the
covenant program, God promised Abraham that in him and his seed, all the nations of the earth would be
blessed (Gen 12:3; 22:18). Additionally, when the New Covenant is fulfilled with Israel in the future
kingdom, the prophets promise that Gentiles will receive trickle down blessings:
Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to Him, and to love the name of the
LORD to be His servants, everyone who keeps from profaning the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant;
even those I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt
offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar, for My house will be called a house of prayer
for all the peoples (Isa 56:6-8).
So, in the Old Testament, there was hope for non-Jews.31 This hope dimmed, however, when Israel was led
by its leaders to reject the Messiah. Jesus laments, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and
stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen
gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you
desolate! (Matt 23:37-38). 48
That God had intended for the Gentiles to share in the Israelite covenant and its special
privileges is also evident from Amos 9, where the covenantal promises are made through Edom
to all the Gentile nations. States Glenny:
Often in OT to be called by Gods name involves a relationship with him which gives the people involved
the right to call upon him for help) Jer 14:9; 15:15-6) and the responsibility to be loyal to him (Deut 28:10).
When the phrase is applied to Israel, as Gods people, it is based on their covenant relationship with him
(Deut 28:10; 2 Chron 7:14). Gentiles, by contrast, have not been called by the name of the Lord (Isa.
63:19). Such covenant relationship, as experienced by Israel, is not explicit in the MT of Amos 9:12. 24 Here
the ownership or control, which are basic to the meaning of this phrase, appear to be a result of military
conquest, as in 2 Samuel 12:28.
The reference to the nations in 9:12, as well as the implied inclusion of both Judah and Israel in the
fulfillment of the prophecy of 9:11-12 forms an overarching inclusion with the judgment of the nations
(including Judah and Israel) in chapters 1-2.25 The blessing promised to the Davidic dynasty/kingdom in
9:11-12 is fulfillment of promises of restoration of power over enemies (Deut. 30: 7; reversal of Lev.
26:36-39).26 However it must also be read in the fuller canonical context of the Abrahamic and
Davidic covenants [emphasis added]. Smith appropriately concludes, Amos is not announcing the doom
of Edom as much as a positive promise of blessing on Edom and all the nations [emphasis added]
(Gen. 12:3; 28:14) committed to Yahweh (cf. Deut. 28:9-10; Jer 14:9). They will enjoy the blessings of
the restored kingdom just like the remnant of Israel [emphasis added].27 49
Kaiser continues to elaborate on the issue, and examines whether the prophets envisage
the Church or even the salvation of Gentiles during the Church age in their writings,50 and
whether there is a single master plan or divine program involving eschatological completion for
both Testaments. 51 States the scholar:
It is virtually impossible to find a more appropriate set of canonical texts to test such a vast array of burning
questions now posed in the whole curriculum of divinity than the two selected as a basis for this paper. The
areas of debate are familiar by now: What is the relationship of the OT to the NT? What exegetical
method(s) does/do the NT quotations of the OT employ, especially in argumentation that seeks OT
support? What are the elements of continuity and/or discontinuity between Israel and the Churchor, to
put it another way: Who are the people of God and what is the kingdom of God? Did the prophets
envisage the Church or even the salvation of Gentiles during the Church age in their writings? Is there a
single master plan or divine program involving eschatological completion for both Testaments? 51
The promised rebuilding of Davids tent is a brief but direct reference to the total program of God
announced to David in 2 Sam 7. Its significance was grasped by David when he exclaimed with
uncontainable joy, And this [new addition to the promise doctrine] is the charter for all mankind, O Lord
GOD.35
Such was the theology that informed36 Amos allusion to Davids house. Gods plan did include the
nations and Gentiles at large in the rebuilt Davidic house. Such also had been the program and intention
of God all along since Abraham had received the word. Indeed, that was the principal thing: All mankind
was to be blessed in Abraham and his seed (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:1718; 26:34; 28:1314). Abram was
specifically promised that he would be father of a multitude of nations (Gen 17:5) when he was renamed
Abraham. Beecher argued that multitude was an unlimited word, entirely different from assembly of
nations.37
But no era of prophetic activity stressed this aspect of the promise doctrine more than did the 8th century
pre-exilic prophets. Isaiah was the master when it came to seeing the nations connected with the ancient
and emerging promise of God. Thirty-six times he linked the nations with the promise in the last twentyseven chapters of his work. Characteristically, Isa 42:6 affirmed: I have given you [the Servant, Israel] as
a covenant to the people, a light to the nations while Davids everlasting covenant made him a
witness, leader and commandment giver to all the peoples. Furthermore, to this new David who
would yet come, it was said, Behold, you shall call nations that you know not, and nations that knew you
not shall run to you, because of the LORD your God, and of the Holy one of Israel, for he has glorified
you (Isa 55:35). Thus the invitation was open: Turn unto me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For
I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue
shall confess (Isa 45:22). True, the nations would dramatically figure in Gods final day of vengeance
(Isa 60:3, 5, 11, 12, 16) as well as in his current providential disposition of nations (Isa 41:2), but nothing
can take away the obvious linkage of the Abrahamic and Davidic blessing to the nations with these
references to Isaiah which promise the harvest of the days of the Church.
This missionary consciousness of the OT reached its climax in Isaiah. When the Messiah (Servant)
would come at the incarnation with Gods approbation of him as the one in whom my soul delights (Isa
42:1), he would bring forth mipt , justice or true, right religion (Isa 42:1; cf. vv 3, 4).38 Justice,
judgment may mean Gods gracious and favorable39 salvation. Davidson also notes that mipt is
followed by le in only one other passage, Ps 146:7, where Yahweh gave a decision in favor of the
imprisonedi. e, a deliverance! Also note that Isa 51:4 linked Gods law, his salvation, and his light
to the peoples.
Thus Gods servant was given as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations (Isa 42:6; 49:6, 8).
Certainly Israel was to be restored and preserved, but Gods salvation designedly gave the seed of the
covenant as light to the nations so that Gods salvation might reach to the end of the earth. Indeed,
Jesus came with good news for the afflicted (Isa 61:1; 42:6; Luke 4:18), just as was predicted. We
conclude that the inclusion of the Gentiles was part and parcel of Gods single plan with Israel!
[emphasis added]. 52
The biblical evidence presented above leaves no doubt that God had intended that the
Gentiles should be partakers in the Divine planthe Divine covenant made with Abraham
before it was made with Israeland that the conditional promises and threats related to the
covenant and the obedience or disobedience to Gods conditions would be applied to all the
Nations in the same degree as would be applied to Israel. Johnssons claim that the Gentiles were
outside the Divine covenant, then, is unbiblical and false. The Bible examples he has provided
are not outside the covenant provisions,53 but well inside them, and this biblical truth impacts
also on the further conclusion he has drawn about those examplesthat no conditional elements
are attached to them.
The biblical evidence that the Gentiles are covenanters with God has also further impact
on Johnssons unsubstantiated claim that we cannot confine our considerations merely to the
principle of conditional prophecy. Indeed, conditionality may not in fact be a significant element
in the interpretation.54 This argument is also found without biblical basis. If the Gentiles are
within the Divine covenant, then the covenants conditions have full force with them, and then
the conditional principle becomes a significant and relevant hermeneutical factor when the
exegetes attempt to interpret and understand the prophecies Johnsson has mentioned.
In fact, as with the traditional but incorrect term used for the Predictions to Israel,55 the
cases that the SDA theologian provides as prophecies in the Short-term Predictions56 section
also fall within the two basic categories, (1) divine threats, and (2) divine promises, and are
associated with appropriate divine verdicts. As in the previous situations, God examines His
peoples spiritual status in relation to the covenant with Him, decides whether there is need for
rebukes and threats or generous promises, and also elects the punishments or rewards His
covenant people should receive. The biblical cases Johnsson submits in his Short-term
Predictions57 section must therefore also be understood and interpreted as condition-based

because their deep biblical background is Gods covenant with His people.
Fixed Prophetic Messages
The third message group Johnsson examines is the Long Term Predictions,58 which
the theologian claims to contain passages that have dual application,59 and to whom the
conditional principle should have a limited application. The promises and threats to ancient
Israel should be understood as conditional. On the other hand, their application to the end-time
is not conditional60 because, again, the [conditional] principle is nowhere in evidence in these
long-term predictions.61 Johnsson also claims that these prophecies come with the ring of the
divine foreknowledge, and are presented as inevitable.62 States the SDA historicist:
Our remarks here are in the context of general prophecy; we consider later the question of apocalyptic.
We agree with the observation that general prophecy focuses on the prophets own times. 22 Occasionally,
however, we find long-term predictionsthose that have to do with the very end of time. The expression
the day of the Lord is a case in point. The term signifies Gods judgment on a city of nation: it is the day
of retribution when justice can no longer be withheld. White the day of the Lord usually refers to
impending doom for the nation of Israel, it gradually takes on a wider aspect. It comes, in some prophecies,
to indicate the end of all things, as Israels punishment is extended on a cosmic scale (Joel 1:15, 2:1, 3:14;
Isa 2:2, 12; 34:8; Amos 5:18020; Ezek 7:19; Zeph 1:7,14, 18; 2:2 2 Pet 3:7-12).
It is out of such consideration that some passages in general prophecy may be seen to have dual
application [emphasis added]. While in their original context they had a message that addressed the people
of Israel, they also apply to conditions at the close of human time, when the judgments on Israel are painted
on a worldwide canvas.
We cannot use a principle of simple conditionality in interpreting such prophecies. The eschatological
flavor takes them beyond the covenant promises/threatenings. If we may hold rightly that such threats to
ancient Israel were conditional, it is certain that their application to the end-time is not conditional.
The NT contains many apparently long-term predictions. It is difficult to know how long is the period
envisaged by NT writers, since the NT contains such a strong note of imminence. 23 This question also
draws us into the apocalyptic portions of the NTan area which we will take up shortly. Leaving aside
Mark 13 (Matt 24; Luke 21) and Revelation, however, it is clear that the NT predicts developments that
will affect the church.
For example, the man of sin is to arise before the Second Coming (2 Thess 2:3); there is to be a falling
away (Acts 20:29-30); perilous times are to arise (2 Tim 3:1-9); persecutions will increase (1 Pet 4:12).
And the supreme happening, the event of all events is the return of Jesus in the clouds (Acts 1:9-11; John
14:1-3; 1 Thess 4:14-18). This event permeates the entire NT, not merely its apocalyptic parts, imbuing its
message with hope and expectation.
The conditionality principle is nowhere in evidence in these long-term predictions. These prophecies come
with the ring of the divine foreknowledge; as such they are presented as inevitable. Although none but the
Father knows the precise date of the Parousia, the event is fixed, altogether sure. Only one passage suggests
the possibility that that day may be hastened, but the passage (2 Pet 3:12) itself may be translated as
waiting for and earnestly desiring instead of waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God.
(Ellen Whites writings, however, do lend support to the idea of the time of the second advent, but not the
certainty of its occurrence, being subject to human response). 63
The SDA scholars confusion seems to increase with the paragraphs above. While he
states that in the above paragraphs he deals with what in the traditional SDA classification are
general or classical prophecies, and that he would approach the apocalyptic prophecies later, and
also that we agree with the observation that general prophecy focuses on the prophets own
times,64 he also makes the unexpected and unusual claim that the conditional principle does
not operate in these long-term predictions,65 although these classical prophecies are not
defined as apocalyptic in the traditional SDA sense.
These long-term predictions, however, are treated like apocalyptic prophecies because
although such threats to ancient Israel were conditional, it is certain that their application to the
end-time is not conditional.66 The conclusion appears to be that the traditional classical
prophecies behave like apocalyptic prophecies, with no apparent and specific differences
between them. The fact that Johnsson makes a distinction between these classical long-term
predictions, that the scholar contends to be unconditional but not apocalyptic, and the
claimed apocalyptic prophecies that are also defined as unconditional67 inevitable,68 and
fixed69 makes one wonder what would be the reason to place into two distinct and separate
categories prophecies that share the same characteristics. There is no doubt that Johnsson has
not found the solution to this Adventist dilemma and fumbles in the dark.
This whole classification confusion trouble has at its root a deductive approach to biblical
interpretation that puts theological indefensible theological constructs before facts and attempts
to find support for non-empirical and fabricated claims. Without this nonsensical distinction
between the classical eschatological Divine forecasts in the OT and NT and what the
traditional SDA historicist scholars isolate as apocalyptic and unconditional, in Daniel and
Revelation, the unique sectarian SDA interpretation for the prophetic messages in the above
prophetic books would not be possible. As in the previous situations, that confusion is between
the divine foreknowledge that sees the human past, present, and future as the extant NOW, and
the false Calvinistic predestination notion that makes the future unconditional and turns
humans into frozen spectators on a world stage.70 This regrettable mix-up could have been
avoided had the SDA historicist scholars taken time to understand the relation between the
Divine plan, Gods foreknowledge, Gods time, human freedom and will, and Gods providence
and His influence and impact on the human lives and the historical events.
First Advent Predictions
The section Predictions of the First Advent of Christ seems to repeat the same confused
and illogical claims based on the same unbiblical and incorrect classification that isolates without
evidence the classical prophecies from the apocalyptic prophecies. States the historicist
scholar:
Paul wrote to the Galatians: When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son (4:4, KJV).
What do his words connote? That the first coming of Christ, the Incarnation, was not by chance. Rather, it
was according to Gods own wisdom. Even though sincere followers of God had awaited Messiahs
appearance for centuries, God had His own timetable; when the time had come fully, He appeared. Church
historians have often drawn attention to the way the world had been prepared for the birth of Jesus;
beyond this, however, we should recognize the divine outworking of the plan of salvation.
The coming of the Messiah, the seed of Abraham in whom all nations of earth would be blessed (Gen
12:3), is clearly part of the covenant promises made to Israel. Yet it transcends the covenant, since the
Messiah is for all nations, not just Israel [emphasis added]. In that transcending the conditionality
principle that rules the covenant promises and threatenings is subjugated. Was Messiahs coming delayed
because Israel had not prepared the world for Him? We have no hint of it. Surely such preparation as they
had made was feeble, but Messiah came. He had to come! In the fullness of the time God sent Him forth.
It seems impossible to apply the conditionality principle to the prophecies of the Messiah. That He would
come of the line of Judah (Gen 49:10), that He would be the son of David (Isa 11:1), that He would be born
in Bethlehem (Mic 5:2), that He would be the Savior, the Substitute for our sins (Isa 53)how can we
speak of conditionality in these predictions? Over and over Matthew quotes the OT with the formula:
that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17, etc.). Even His name is told to Mary
before His birth (Matt 1:21)surely a microcosm of the divine foreordering of Messiahs first coming!
Beyond the specific prophecies which usually we label Messianic, the entire OT looks to Him. It is a
work of expectation, moving forward and narrowing in upon the birth which is celebrated in the NT. 24 71
While the coming of the Messiah, the seed of Abraham in whom all nations of earth
would be blessed (Gen 12:3), is clearly part of the covenant promises made to Israel, the Divine
incarnation, as shown before, does not transcend the covenant72 with Israel, because had
included the Gentiles in the Abrahamic covenant and its promises. Again, the predictions about
Christs birth as man-God were not in fact unconditional prophecies, but divine forecasts that
revealed events that from a human perspective would happen in the historical future, but from
Gods perspective had happened. States Erickson:
God is also infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to him. He was before time began. The
question, How old is God? is simply inappropriate. He is no older now than a year ago, for infinity plus one
is no more than infinity. He simply is not restricted by the dimension of time. 73
The fact that God is not bound by time does not mean that he is not conscious of the succession of points of
time. He knows what is now occurring in human experience. He is aware that events occur in a particular
order. Yet he is equally aware of all points of that order simultaneously. This transcendence over time has
been likened to a person who sits on a steeple while he watches a parade. He sees all parts of the parade at
the different points on the route rather than only what is going past him at the moment. He is aware of what
is passing each point of the route. So God also is aware of what is happening, has happened, and will
happen at each point in time. Yet at any given point within time he is also conscious of the distinction
between what is now occurring, what has been, and what will be. 74
Prophetic Messages and Divine Present

The theologians conclusion about the classical or general prophecies that he interprets
to have dual fulfillmentboth conditional and unconditional, in his DARCOM article is as
follows:
The implications of this classification of the non-apocalyptic portions of biblical prophecy are profound for
the conditionality idea. The analysis suggests that, far from conditionality being a principle that may be,
and indeed should be, applied to all biblical predictions, the very term conditional prophecy is misleading
in view of the biblical data. Indeed, for the most part so-called conditionality is rather covenant promise
or covenant threatening. Remove the predictions that fall under the covenant with Israel and conditionality
occupies a minor place in the biblical material.75
The SDA theologian is right in what he affirms and wrong in what he denies. Indeed, the
term conditional prophecies is a misnomer when applied to all biblical predictions. For the
most part, the prophecies Johnsson has cited as biblical examples in his chaotic discussion
about the classical or general prophecies are no predictions at all, but threats and promises that
are conditional on the human obedience to the eternal covenant that God had established with
His people the Gentiles included. On the other hand, what the scholar defines with the general
term predictions are divine forecasts that describe future historical incidents, but are unlike
the unconditional and unalterable events presented in the Calvinistic doctrine. Their actual
source is the Divine, outside time, omniscience and foresight.
The simple solution to the prophetic interpretation maize inside which Johnsson has been
trapped is that in Gods transcendence all historical events occur in the divine presentthe
eternal NOWthat includes past, present, and future human events. What Johnsson and all the
other SDA historicists call unconditional prophecies in the OT and NT are in fact divine
forecasts that from a human perspective will take place in the future, but from Gods perspective
are completed past events that cannot be changed. Human freedom and free will remain. Humans
are not simple spectators to events on a world stage76 or numb figurines that God had molded
like inanimate wax, but rational human creatures that share in Gods divine plan for them and
have a preordained choice for their future.
Conditionalism in the Divine Messages
Prophetic conditionalism, or the theological notion that numerous prophetic messages
that are included in the Bible are biblical predictions whose fulfillment is dependent on the
action or reaction of human beings,77 has been examined and debated in the theological circles
for centuries due to the inherent tension between Gods plan for the human beings and the divine
foreknowledge on one side, and human freedom and free will on the other side. Prophetic
messages based on Divine covenantal threats and promises, though, abound in the Bible, and
the biblical passages that indicate that Gods verdicts depend in large measure on the human
responses provide adequate evidence for the conditionalist perspective. In his detailed and well
documented article, Conditionalism: A Cornerstone of Adventist Doctrine,78 Crosby provides
the proper background and the suitable examples that demonstrate that this perspective is based
on a factual biblical evidence. States the writer in his introduction:
The Scriptures teach that all of the prophecies, covenants, promises, and threats [emphasis added] found
in the Scriptures are conditional whether or not a condition is stated [emphasis in the original]; 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 18:7-10.79
The articles author then continues his discussion with multiple biblical examples that
demonstrate how Gods response to the humans depends on their reactions to His requirements
and expectations for them. He first provides examples about how God did not deteriorate his
divine threats into punishment verdicts when the humans repented, and then provides
examples about how God downgraded His divine promises into punishment verdicts when the
humans turned from Him and refused to listen to His admonishments and rebukes:
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 [emphasis added].
[Punishments Withdrawn]
Jonah's prediction [threat, emphasis added] that Nineveh would be destroyed was not fulfilled [emphasis
added] (Jonah 3:4, 10), even though his prophecy of doom was not qualified by any stated conditions.
God's [threats, emphasis added] prophecies of Jerusalem's destruction in the days of Hezekiah were not
fulfilled [emphasis added] when the people repented (Jer. 26:18, 19).
Isaiah's [threat, emphasis added] prophecy that Hezekiah would soon die of his present sickness was not
fulfilled [emphasis added] (2 Kings 20:1-6).
God promised [threat, emphasis added] through Elijah to punish Ahab, then relented [emphasis added]
when Ahab repented (1 Kings 21:17-29).
[Blessings Withdrawn]
Because of Eli's disobedience, God retracted [emphasis added] His promise [emphasis added] that his
descendants would serve the Lord forever (1 Sam. 2:30).
God's promise [emphasis added] to bring the Israelites who came out of Egypt into the Promised Land
(Ex. 6:8) was not fulfilled [emphasis added] (Num. 14:30-34).
Though God through Moses promised [emphasis added] the Israelites they would never see the
Egyptians again (Ex. 14:13), He threatened to break that promise if they were disobedient [emphasis
added] (Deut. 28:58, 68).
Ezekiel 5 contains God's promise [threat, emphasis added] to destroy Jerusalem, which was fulfilled
[emphasis added] 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 [emphasis added] Aaron and his sons a perpetual priesthood that would last throughout
their generations (Ex. 40:15; Num. 25:13). Yet the Levitical priest hood was replaced [emphasis added]
with the Melchizedekian (Hebrews 7).80
Conditions and the Prophetic Failures

The SDA theologian continues his discussion on conditionalism with an adequate
explanation about the reasons some prophecies have failed in their fulfillments. From the
above examples, it becomes obvious that the claimed prophetic failures are in fact the
consequences that followed the disobedience that broke mans covenant with God. States the
articles author:
Conditionalism helps us to understand why many of the prophecies of the Old Testament, 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 New Testament 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 New Testament teaches that physical descent from Abraham is meaningless (Luke 3:8; John 8:39-44);
it is Abraham's spiritual descendantsthose who accept Christ as the Messiahwho 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.81
IV. Unconditional Prophecies in the Bible

The short Adventist definition for unconditional prophecies in the Bible is that these
misnamed prophecies are biblical predictions whose fulfillment is independent of the action
or reaction of human beings.1 Johnsson also adds to his misinterpretation the absurd notion that
within those prophetic timelines humans become spectators to events on a world stage,2 and
that as spectators we, the impotent humans, are seeing the divine foreknowledge unfold the
course of the future3 with no option to participate in the events and to influence them.
This, of course, is pure nonsense, but Pfandl, the sad excuse for a Biblical Research
Institute [further, BRI] theologian, never hesitates to repeat absurdities while he takes undue
credit for them, and he copies Johnsson without discernment in his unoriginal paper.4 He states:
Apocalyptic prophecy and historicism
18:7-10). Classical prophets tied God's activities to events in human history. 5
On the other hand, apocalyptic prophecy presents Gods cosmic timetable for the final supernatural
human response, e.g., Christ's first coming was not dependent on Israels or Judah's obedience. He came,
when the fullness of the time [outlined in Dan. 9:24-27] had come (Gal. 4:4, NKJV), even though the
events on a world stage; we are seeing the divine foreknowledge unfold the course of the future. 6
2,300 evenings and mornings and the "three and a half times" in Daniel 7 and 8, therefore, are not
fulfillment.
Throughout most of church history these apocalyptic time prophecies were interpreted according to the
historicist method of interpretation. Only in the last two hundred years have other systems, such as
Preterism and futurism, replaced historicism. And, as all students of prophecy know, the backbone of
historicism is the year-day principle.5
While he selects from Johnssons inaccurate document6 what is convenient for him, the
BRI pseudo-theologian, however, fails to indicate that Johnssons had made the point that the
term classical prophecies was a misnomer and that, in fact, those prophecies were
covenantal threats or promises7notions that throw a new light on those divine messages. He
also misses Johnssons important discussion about the non-apocalyptic prophecies in the OT and
the NT that also appear to be unconditional,8 although such prophecies do not present
Gods cosmic timetable for the final supernatural appearance of the kingdom of God,9 and
should not be classified as unconditional. These presumed unconditional prophecies about
which the BRI scholar is so excited and overconfident require the historicist school10 and also
the assumed Year-Day Principle11 for their unique Adventist interpretation, but empirical
evidence indicates that both the SDA historicism and the Year-Day Principle are unbiblical and
have no historical and linguistic basis, and should be discarded as unscientific and inadequate
hermeneutics for the Daniel and Revelation prophecies.12, 13
Unconditional Prophecies under Scope
Pfandl is over his head in his attempt to venture into theological territories that he cannot
handle, so we need to return to Johnsson in order watch how the scholar struggles to figure out
those Scriptural passages or prophecies that in the SDA historicist theological tradition have
been classified as unconditional. States Johnsson:
Despite the literary outpouring of scholars and learned conferences on apocalyptic, no clearcut definition
has found acceptance. Apocalyptic as a literary genre is more readily identifiable, although even here we
need to tread cautiously. Apocalyptic writing in general is characterized by symbolic language, graphic
portrayals, colors, numbers, and secrets known only to the initiated. In terms of content, apocalyptic speaks
of the radical disjunction of the agesof the eclipse of the old era and the break-in of the new.
Some scholars have emphasized the unique features of apocalyptic, seeking to distance it from general
prophecy of the Bible. On the other hand, others have drawn attention to the ancient character of
apocalyptic and downplay the differences with general prophecy.
In this essay we do not presuppose one of these stances over against the other, nor do we attempt to
resolves such areas of scholarly debate. We do hold, however, that biblical apocalyptic predictions are
inspired by the same Spirit who called forth all the predictions of the Bible. We further hold that the
selfsame Spirit will guide the sincere seeker for truth as he endeavors to determine the role of conditionality
in apocalyptic.
When we begin to examine biblical apocalyptic, we soon sense that we have entered another sphere.
Though apocalyptic arises in Israel or Asia Minor, it bursts the confines of Israel or Asia Minor. Though it
first speaks a message of God to a nation in captivity (Daniel) or to churches undergoing persecution
(Revelation), it transcends the immediate setting in which it came to birth. Apocalyptic has a cosmic sweep,
and it rushes down the continuum of world history to focus on the end-time.
Obviously, we cannot examine every apocalyptic passage of the Bible in this paper. Instead, we shall focus
our attention on the outstanding books of apocalyptic of the OTDaniel and Zechariah, and on the most
prominent literature of the NT-Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 and Revelation. Our concern throughout is
with a single issue: What place does conditionality have in these apocalyptic predictions? [emphasis
added] 14
There are a few important things that we need to consider in Johnssons paragraphs
above. In the first place, the scholar does not provide for the reader a clear and precise definition
for the term apocalyptic. He states that no clearcut definition [of apocalyptic] has found
acceptance, offers a few rhetorical features that seem to define the genre such as symbolic
language, graphic portrayals, colors, numbers, and suggests that the apocalyptic content
includes secrets known only to the initiated and appears also to indicate the radical
disjunction of the agesof the eclipse of the old era and the break-in of the new. Such a general
and simplistic definition for the apocalyptic cannot help the interpreter to isolate in the biblical
text those passages that might be identifiable and qualifiable as apocalyptic, and leaves the
biblical scholar in unknown waters.
The problem becomes obvious when Johnsson makes the attempt to treat in the same
manner the standard apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, and also the classical
prophecies in Zachariah that the SDA historicist attempts now to rezone as apocalyptic, but
without solid and reliable evidence. While he claims that the portions of Zechariah that might
be construed as apocalyptic are chapters 1-6 and 9-14,15 he must also acknowledge the obvious
fact that the first six chapters are disputable in terms of their apocalyptic character, depending
on ones definition of apocalyptic.16 This statement should trouble the serious scholars because
Johnsson appears to leave the definition formulation to the personal opinions of those who
consider themselves capable enough to decide what is and what is not apocalyptic, and makes
suspicious all his other arguments based on that tentative and speculative definition.
From this point on, the article seem to slide into a different rhetorical genre that is far
from academic because Johnsson appears to write poetical prose and not scientific research. His
first speculative and fanciful contention is that we soon sense that we have entered another
sphere,17 the second is that the assumed but not confirmed apocalyptic message transcends
the immediate setting in which it came to birth,18 and the third that apocalyptic has a cosmic
sweep, and it rushes down the continuum of world history to focus on the end-time.19 The wild
historicist speculation is in, while the empirical evidence is out. The assumption peddled the
most in the SDA historicist circles is that these apocalyptic prophecies [have] a cosmic
sweep that rushes down the continuum of world history to focus on the end-time.20 The
factual evidence I have presented in the research document entitled Adventist Historicism
Reexamined and Critiqued demonstrates that all the above claims cannot be supported with
biblical and historical evidence and shows that the SDA historical record is fragmented and
discontinuous and that from the SDA historicist perspective the world ends in 1840 with the
Ottoman empire.21 The arguments that are presented in the Adventist Historicism Reexamined
and Critiqued are also validated in graphic format through the four prophetic charts that were
produced and disseminated among the Adventists in 1843, 1850, 1860, and 1876. All those
Adventist prophetic charts contain the same time landmark and historical end 1840 and the
Ottoman or Turkish Empire.
SimplisticSimplisticthe Simplistic
We have contended, in agreement with Johnsson, that the traditional SDA historicist
classification certain prophetic messages as classical or general and conditional is incorrect
because numerous prophetic message included in this theoretical construct cluster are in fact
covenantal threats and promises, 22 and to characterize them as conditional is redundant and
immaterial. States Johnsson:
The implications of this classification of the non-apocalyptic portions of biblical prophecy are profound for
the conditionality idea. The analysis suggests that, far from conditionality being a principle that may be,
and indeed should be, applied to all biblical predictions, the very term conditional prophecy is misleading
in view of the biblical data. Indeed, for the most part so-called conditionality is rather covenant promise
or covenant threatening. Remove the predictions that fall under the covenant with Israel and conditionality
occupies a minor place in the biblical material.23
We have also concurred with Johnssons statement that when theologians converse about
the apocalyptic genre their discussions cannot be precise, specific, and rigorous because the
truth is that so far no clearcut definition [for the genre] has found acceptance, 24 and a rigid
position in the matter would indicate ignorance rather than expertise. For this more than obvious
reason, the theologian limits his own definition for apocalyptic to some rhetorical features and
vague content specifics. He does not have the required expertise to discuss the genres generic
structure and to look at the essential and optional elements25 that define apocalyptic. States the
historicist theologian:
Despite the literary outpouring of scholars and learned conferences on apocalyptic, no clearcut definition
has found acceptance. Apocalyptic as a literary genre is more readily identifiable, although even here we
need to tread cautiously. Apocalyptic writing in general is characterized by symbolic language, graphic
portrayals, colors, numbers, and secrets known only to the initiated. In terms of content, apocalyptic speaks
of the radical disjunction of the agesof the eclipse of the old era and the break-in of the new.
Some scholars have emphasized the unique features of apocalyptic, seeking to distance it from general
prophecy of the Bible. On the other hand, others have drawn attention to the ancient character of
apocalyptic and downplay the differences with general prophecy. 26
Pfandl, the BRI amateur theologian, though, prefers to travel back in theological time
before 1986 when Johnsson had written his DARCOM document Conditionality in Biblical
Prophecy With Particular Reference to Apocalyptic. In an uninformed and simplistic article
written for the December 2003 Ministry issue (that is, 17 years later) he returns to the rough and
the uncutthe unrefined rudimentsand reinvents the theological wheel although Johnsson had
made sure to clear some traditional confusion that hovered over the SDA theologians about the
misnamed classical prophecies, and about the specifics of apocalyptic as an undefined and
unspecified biblical genre. There is a difference, Pfandl resists, between what he calls in his
uninformed and outdated term classical prophecies, and, therefore conditional from his
limited and partial perspective and what he defines, again in imprecise and coarse theological
language as apocalyptic and, therefore, unconditional. States the BRI historicist:
18:7-10). "Classical prophets tied God's activities to events in human history." 5
human response, e.g., Christ's first coming was not dependent on Israel's or Judah's obedience. He came,
"when the fullness of the time [out lined in Dan. 9:24-27] had come" (Gal. 4:4, NKJV), even though the
events on a world stage; we are seeing the divine foreknowledge unfold the course of the future.6
2,300 "evenings and mornings" and the "three and a half times" in Daniel 7 and 8, therefore, are not
fulfillment.27
The errors the BRI expert theologian has included in the above paragraphs are too
numerous to discuss, and because conditional issues has been clarified in some previous
statements, we will leave to the readers to examine and evaluate Phandls errors. His simplistic
and backwards approach to theological matters that far exceed his intellectual aptitudes and
competence and his arrogance, though, makes one wonder what he did at the BRI all those
decades where he worked there. That such an inept individual even has presumed again and
again to patronize other SDA theologians and tell them what is truth is what is not is evidence
that the BRI does not deserve the traditional scholastic prestige among the Adventists and that
the selection for the individuals who are hired for this SDA General Conference department must
become professional and rigorous.
Assumed Unconditionalism in Daniel
We are now at the point where we need to review the specific claims Johnsson makes
about the apocalyptic and unconditional prophecies which is the SDA historicist theologians
claim to be included in Daniel, Zechariah, and the Gospels. The first Bible book the theologian
examines is Daniel. He states:
When we compare the prophecies of the nations in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 with those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or
Ezekiel, we note a marked contrast. In Daniel, the place of Israel has receded, as has the element of
threatenings. Rather, we behold a panorama, a march of the kingdoms leading on to the Eschaton (the End).
We have become spectators to events on a world stage; we are seeing the divine foreknowledge unfold
the course of the future [emphasis added].
Here are the ideas that rule the presentation of Daniel:
2: 20-22 Daniel said: Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might.
He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and
knowledge to those who have understanding; he reveals deep and mysterious things; he knows what is in
the darkness, and the light dwells with him.
2:28 There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar
what will be in the latter days.
2:29 He who reveals mysteries made known to you what is to be.
2:45 The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.
2:47 your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries.
4:34-35 For his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to
generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and he does according to his will in the
host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, What
doest thou?
5:21 The Most High God rules the kingdom of men, and sets over it whom he will.
These ideas center in the divine sovereignty and divine foreknowledge. In this presentation the human side
of history, while portrayed in the ebb and flow of the fortunes of the people of God, is gathered up within
the ruling conception of Yahweh as Lord of history. We search in vain for the element of conditionality
[emphasis added].
So we hear the prophetic time periods laid out before us. They are long ones. In keeping with the
panoramic scope of history in which they are given, they must be such. We hear of 1,260 days for the
reign of the blasphemous little horn power (7:25) and of 2,300 days until the sanctuary shall be
vindicated, after the evil work of the little horn (8:14). Given the setting, these time predictions
cannot be meant literally [emphasis added].25
Since our studies of general prophecy showed the importance of identifying any covenant setting, we need
to take note of this motif in the book of Daniel. In fact, the covenant idea does occur in two lines of
prophecychapter 9 and chapter 11. Do these occurrences suggest that conditionality is a hidden agenda
of the book?
Not at all [emphasis added]. We need, first of all, to distinguish clearly between Daniels own hopes and
understanding and the unfolding of the future that Yahweh, Lord of history, communicated to him. Daniel,
though prominent in public life, is a captivealong with his people. Jerusalem is in exile; the sanctuary is
desolate. Out of this situation Daniel prays for the restoration of his people, his city, his sanctuary (9:1-19).
His prayer is based on the covenant: the desolations have come in fulfillment of the threats written in the
law of Moses (9:13); likewise that law provides hope of Yahwehs mercy.
But the prediction given to Daniel far outstripped the history of Israel. Indeed, Daniel could not
comprehend the vision of chapter 8, with its sanctuary references (8:27). Likewise, the reply to his prayer
went far beyond the restoration of city and temple to the Messiah (9:24-27).
Israel and covenant are mentioned also in the prophecy of chapter 11 (11:22, 28, 30-35). It may be
significant that, as in 9:24-27, the apocalyptic nature of chapter 11 is much less evident than in chapters 2,
7, and 8. Even if we include chapter 11 under apocalyptic, however, two observations are valid.
1. The fortunes of Israel are treated in a relatively minor mannerthe concern is with the conflict between
the king of the north and the king of the south.
2. We find no hint of conditionalityindeed, the very nature of the prophecy, detailed as it is and linked
through many generations, speaks strongly against conditionality as a factor in interpretation. 28
The DARCOM theologians approaches the biblical texts he has quoted from an outdated
historicist position, and remains trapped in that perspective. He claims, for instance, that the
chapters 2, 7, and 8 present a panorama, a march of the kingdoms leading on to the Eschaton
(the End).29 This statements, though, is an assumption. There is no historical support for this
notion, and Johnsson provides no support for his assertion. There is no actual march of the
kingdoms that leads to the Eschaton in the Adventist interpretation for Daniel. This becomes
obvious when one examines the evidence the SDA historicists produce in order to defend their
theological perspective.30 The narrative might be attractive, and might ensnare some gullible
minds, but the historical records provide no support for it. For the Adventists, the historical facts
end in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. No traditional historicist in the SDA theological circles
extends his interpretation past that landmark.
The Adventist historicist scroll is quite short, although we are seeing the divine
foreknowledge unfold the course of the future [emphasis added].31 And here seems to hide
the problem that confounds the theologian. While he has noticed that these ideas [in the biblical
texts he has quoted] center in the divine sovereignty and divine foreknowledge,32 he also
contends that we search in vain for the element of conditionality.33 Trapped in the fallacious
historicist perspective, the SDA scholar fails to comprehend that the prophecies he quoted cannot
be conditional because their purpose is to describe the future from Gods timeless perspective
and are, in fact, prophetic forecasts. Because God is outside time, the events He describes have
occurred in the divine present where past, present, and future merge as a single time frame, and
what has happened remains in the past and cannot be changed. For the humans, the situations and
events described in the prophetic forecasts are still future and liable to change, but from the
divine perspective outside time the option to change those events and situations has past. For this
reason, those prophecies appear to be unconditional as much as an event that occurred in the
past has also become permanent and irreversible, and therefore unconditional. The claimed and
assumed conditional principle is not a valid and reliable hermeneutical principle in this case
because, again, these prophetic messages are divine forecasts that describe a done future.
The notion that the prophetic time periods laid out before us are long because the
panoramic scope of history in which they are given 34 requires the panoramic is based on
assumptions too numerous to be dealt with in this document. The biblical and historical evidence
contradicts such claims, while the time periods Johnsson mentions have never been authenticated
and remain pure historicist speculations. The numerous documents I have written on various
sectarian Adventist claims provide factual and indisputable evidence that the SDA prophetic
interpretation is bad hermeneutics or even less.35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41
Failed Unconditionalism in Zechariah
Matters seem to become even more complicated when one looks at another OT book that
is seldom included with Daniel and Revelation as essential to the SDA dogmas Zechariah. The
book is kept on the back burner because the Adventist historicist theologians have not solved the
puzzles that surround the prophetic messages in the book. States Johnsson:
The book of Zechariah is among the most obscure of the Scriptures. Although, like Daniel, it contains
apocalyptic, it has not attracted the careful study of Adventist scholars [emphasis added]. In making
this observation we are not faulting necessarily Adventist scholarship. Apocalyptic documents per se are
not of equal value to us [emphasis added].
The portions of Zechariah that might be construed as apocalyptic are chapters 1-6 and 9-14. The first six
chanters are disputable in terms of their apocalyptic character, depending on ones definition of
apocalyptic. However, they are highly symbolic and, for the sake of completeness, we will include them in
this paper. Chapters 9-14 seem clearly apocalyptic.
Zechariah, like Haggai, was a prophet to the Jews who returned from exile. The two messengers from
Yahweh were instrumental in galvanizing the Jews to rebuild the temple (see Ezra 6:14). Zechariah 1-6
reflect the national concerns. Through a series of visions Yahweh conveyed His concern for Jerusalem
(chap. 1`), the rebuilding of the city (chap. 2), His acceptance of Joshua the high priest (chap. 3), the
certainty of the success of the peoples efforts (chap. 4), the removal of sin from the restored community
(chap.5), and God superintendence of affairs (chap. 6).
These chapters show a conditional element. The prophets opening words are: The Lord was very angry
with your fathers. Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts,
and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. Be not like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried
out, Thus says the Lord of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds. But they did not
hear or heed me, says the Lord (Zech 1:2-4).
But this is not conditionality with respect to long-term predictions. Rather, the setting is within the
covenant made with the people of Israel. That is, Zechariah 1-6, whether or not we classify as apocalyptic,
is of the same order as the first category in the classification of general prophecy.
Although Zechariah 9-14 looks beyond the immediate concerns of the prophet and his people, the visions
are still within the setting of the covenant. As for you, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I
will set your captives free from the waterless pit, promises Yahweh to Israel (9:11). Gods wrath will fall
upon Israels enemies ((:1-8), especially as they gather against Jerusalem in bathe (14: 2-3). Though Israel
will suffer travail, God will deliver her: I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of
Joseph (10:6).
In these chapters, then, it seems undeniable that (1) apocalyptic is present, and (2) the center of the
predictions is Israel (see, for example, 14:16, those who survive the great bathe against Jerusalem keep the
feast of booths). These chapters belong among the other OT prophecies to Israel which could not find
realization because the nation refused to walk within the provisions of the covenant with Israel.
Thus, chapters 1-6 and 9-14 are of a piececonditional, inasmuch as the covenant is conditional on the
human response. Although these prophecies may be viewed as apocalyptic in form, covenant clearly takes
priority. Apocalyptic may be merely a vehicle through which the covenant promises and threatenings
to Israel are portrayed [emphasis added]. 42
The above paragraphs contain certain questionable statements and partial truths that
indicate that the SDA prophetic interpretation has been selective, preferential, and biased. The
scholar admits that although, like Daniel [Zechariah] contains apocalyptic, it has not attracted
the careful study of Adventist scholars43 because apocalyptic documents per se are not of equal
value to us [SDA interpreters].44 The reason is obvious: the SDA theologians have not been able
to use the prophetic messages in Zechariah to support and defend the claimed unique Adventist
prophetic interpretation, and so the book has been ignored on purpose.
The interpreter depends in this case, as also for the prophetic messages in Daniel and
Revelation on a clear and precise definition for the term apocalyptic, but such a specific
definition is not available because no clearcut definition has found acceptance.45 We are faced
with the same issue again: to examine and interpret prophetic messages encapsulated in a format
about which we know little or nothing. That does not seem like serious, empirical, and rigorous
scholarship, and therefore the SDA historicists conclusions, as we shall see, are tentative and
speculative.
The theologian notes that Zechariah has two sections that should interest the Adventist
historicists, and states that the portions of Zechariah that might be construed as apocalyptic are
chapters 1-6 and 9-14,46 argues that chapters 1-6 show a conditional element,47 and also
claims that both prophetic sections, chapters 1-6 and 9-14 are of a piececonditional, inasmuch
as the covenant is conditional on the human response. 48 His conclusion, though, contradicts the
traditional Adventist perspective that the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation are
unconditional.49 Johnssons simplistic and speculative solution to the contradiction is the claim
that although these prophecies may be viewed as apocalyptic in form, covenant clearly takes
priority, and that the Apocalyptic may be merely a vehicle through which the covenant
promises and threatenings to Israel are portrayed [emphasis added]. 50
His speculative claims, tough, fail to solve the puzzle that Zechariah creates. The puzzle
grows when one notices that Daniel 9which the SDA historicists have declared again and
again as apocalyptic and unconditional 51is also covenantal, its setting is within the covenant
[God] made with the people of Israel,52 and its content structure is identical to the one in
Zechariah: the first section, contained in verses 1-19 include the prophets fervent request to God
to forgive Israelwho had broken the covenant, and the traditional Adventist would consider
this section conditional par excellence, while the second sectionverses 20-27is apocalyptic
and eschatological, and assumed, from an SDA historicist perspective, unconditional. While
Johnsson contends that although these prophecies [in Zechariah] may be viewed as apocalyptic
in form, covenant clearly takes priority, 53 we can make the same claim for Daniel 9, and this
fact becomes obvious even from a rapid look at the texts form and content.
We have, therefore, similar prophetic messages with similar contents encapsulated within
similar textual structures, but Johnsson contends that the apocalyptic message in Zechariah must
be conditional, while he argues that the apocalyptic message in Daniel is unconditional. The
excuse for the hard distinction he makes between the prophetic messages in Zechariah and those
in Daniel is that apocalyptic may be merely a vehicle through which the covenant promises
and threatenings to Israel are portrayed [emphasis added]. 54 Such a weak and unsupported
statement in a theological series that has been the Adventist historicist pride for more than three
decades is hard to believe, but the reason for the scholars desperate effort to separate the
prophetic messages in Zechariah from those in Daniel is that to accept the fact that the prophetic
content is almost identical while the interpretation is quite different in the two books would make
the Adventist perspective on Daniel and Revelation even less plausible and reliable than it has
been until nowif such situation would even be possible.
The Unmentioned Alternate Eschaton
The divine promises in Zechariahs prophetic forecast present a magnificent future for the
covenantal Israel, selected texts from chapters 9-14 should provide evidence that these passages
cannot be interpreted to describe local events that would
9:9 KJV
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto
thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
9:15-16 KJV
The LORD of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and
they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of
the altar. 16 And the LORD their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shall be
as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.
10: 6 KJV
And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them
again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I
am the LORD their God, and will hear them.
12:10 KJV
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace
and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him,
as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his
firstborn.
13:1 KJV In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.
14:1-21KJV Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled,
and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall
not be cut off from the city.
3
Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and
the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be
a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5
And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea,
ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD
my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass,
that at evening time it shall be light.
8
And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former
sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9
And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10
All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up,
and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and
from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11
And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely
inhabited.
12
And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against
Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume
away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
13
And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they
shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his
neighbour.
14
And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered
together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.
15
And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that
shall be in these tents, as this plague.
16
And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall
even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17
And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the
King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18
And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague,
wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19
This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the
feast of tabernacles.
20
In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the
LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21
Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that
sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the
Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
While God makes the above eschatological predictions within the covenant made with
the people of Israel, 55 and the center of the predictions is Israel56 to claim that these chapters
belong among the other OT prophecies to Israel which could not find realization because the
nation refused to walk within the provisions of the covenant with Israel,57 is to miss the obvious
point that it had been Gods plan to bring salvation to mankind through His chosen people, and
that this plan had been repeated in the OT numerous times. The prophetic image drawn in
chapter 14 does not present local and trivial events, but amplitudinal developments that involve
the entire world. In these texts, as in Daniel 2, 7, and 8, we behold a panorama, a march of the
kingdoms leading on to the Eschaton (the End). We have become spectators to events on a world
stage; we are seeing the divine foreknowledge unfold the course of the future.58 As was stated
above, to claim that the apocalyptic in this cosmic description may be merely a vehicle through
which the covenant promises and threatenings to Israel are portrayed is to avoid the actual
interpretation issuethe fact that the SDA historicist theologians have failed to find an adequate
hermeneutical solution for the eschatological alternative dilemma Zechariah poses.
This hermeneutical problem becomes obvious when one takes a look at the alternate
eschaton that chapters 21 and 22 in Revelation propose. We cannot fail to notice that the divine
forecast comes to the readers, in the above chapters, not in apocalyptic language but in plain
descriptive text that cannot be questioned or doubted, and although the context in Zechariah
differs from the one in Revelation both present a similar eschatonthe restauration that God has
promised to implement on this planet diseased with sin:
21:1-27 KJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed
away; and there was no more sea.
2
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride
adorned for her husband.
3
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will
dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor
crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these
words are true and faithful.
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him
that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers,
and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is
the second death.
9
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues,
and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11
Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear
as crystal;
12
And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written
thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13
On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the
Lamb.
15
And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall
thereof.
16
And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the
reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17
And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a
man, that is, of the angel.
18
And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19
And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first
foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20
The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the
tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21
And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city
was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
22
23
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it,
and the Lamb is the light thereof.
24
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring
their glory and honour into it.
25
And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26
And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination,
or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
22:1-21KJV And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne
of God and of the Lamb.
2
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve
manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the
nations.
3
And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants
shall serve him:
4
And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God
giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6
And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his
angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
7
Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship
before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9
Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and
of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10
And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is
righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall
be.
13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in
through the gates into the city.
15
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever
loveth and maketh a lie.
16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the
offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst
come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his
part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
One wonders how to interpret and understand these biblical passages when their generic
structuredescriptive prose, and their prophetic contentrealistic narrative, differs so much
from the claimed unconditional apocalyptic passages that we encounter in Daniel. Johnsson
never mentions this eschatological text in Revelation, does not exegete it, and has no comment
about it, although its prophetic content has direct relevance for the Adventist vision about the
Earths restauration to its pristine condition before the fall. The fact remains that the Adventist
theologian has ignored chapters 21 and 22 from Revelation and has not considered this
eschatological section in his discussions about conditionalism in the Bible.
Claimed Unconditionalism in The NT
The last Bible books Johnson examines in his section on unconditional prophecies are
the three Gospels where Christ makes his predictions about Israels future as a nation, and
Revelation. He spends little time and little ink for these sectionsthree short paragraphs for the
Gospels, and two paragraphs for Revelation:
Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21
With our Lords prediction we have left behind Israel and covenant. We need but ask, Does His prophecy
point to conditionality?
It does not. Instead of conditions we find signsa series of signs in order that herald the great return. The
last of these is the preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world (Matt 24:14).
The Prince of prophets speaks here. He speaks, not in terms of human conditions that must be met, but of
events that unerringly presage His coming.59
Revelation
The book of Revelation is of a similar order to Daniel. John is told to write the things which are, and the
things which shall be [not may be] hereafter (1:19, KJV, emphasis supplied). He sees the struggles of the
people of God, the final judgment scene (chaps. 5, 20), a remnant people at the end of all things who stand
faithful and loyal to Godthose who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus (14:12,
KJV). As the world order comes to a halt in the final outworking of the confederates of evil and in the
divine intervention of punishment, Gods people stand secure in Him. Beyond the turmoil, after the
nightmare happenings preceding the second advent, there emerges at last a new heavens and a new earth,
where righteousness dwells.
So the great controversy, the agelong conflict between Christ and Satan, is ended. It is ended because God
has ended it. Its end is as sure as the lordship of God over time and space. 60
Such wholesale, generic, and en passant review for Christs prophetic utterances in the
Gospels and for the most important prophetic book in the NTless than a page in allprovides
the reader with no substantial information about conditionalism in the Bible books mentioned
above. About the Gospels, all the scholar does is to comment that With our Lords prediction
we have left behind Israel and covenant. We need but ask, Does His prophecy point to
conditionality? It does not. Instead of conditions we find signsa series of signs in order that
herald the great return.61 The question, however, should be: Are these signs divine caveats that
should encourage the true believers to examine their lives in order to be prepared for the final
events and the worlds end? If the answer to this question is Yes, then the above prophetic
messages are conditional and the choices the Christians make in their lives are relevant and will
make a difference for their future. As for Johnssons comments on Revelation, we can state with
confidence that those paragraphs add nothing at all to the discussion on conditionalism in the
Bible and should have been stricken out before the manuscript went to the press.
One wonders whether the above platitudes are all that Johnsson is able to deliver about
Christs prophetic messages in the Gospels and the prophetic forecasts in Revelation. The
passages sound like quotations from books attributed to Ellen White, and not professional and
rigorous theological work that should be expected in an SDA book series claimed to be the best
theological productions since Glacier View. That the seven apologetic volumes that have been
included in the DARCOM series have been a great disappointment for numerous Adventist
sounds quite redundant but must be mentioned again here due to the delusional and often
repeated perspective that these books represent the powerful research of the Daniel and
Revelation Committee.62 If these volumes that contain nothing but old, static, and repetitive
historicist claims never supported with solid and rigorous factual evidence are the best research
that the scholars who put the documents together could produce, then one has the right to wonder
what would be no research at all coming from the same theologians.
Conclusion without the Conclusion
The conclusion that Johnsson draws after he has examined various prophecies and
prophetic books in the OT and NT seems weak, open to multiple questions, and without
empirical support. He states:
We conclude, therefore, that, except in those passages where the covenant with Israel is the leading
concern, apocalyptic predictions, whether OT or NT, do not hinge on conditionality. Rather, the divine
sovereignty and foreknowledge are the leading ideas.63
The theologians conclusion is not established on serious and rigorous empirical data that
he had obtained from examined biblical passages, but on deductive logic whose contextual
source is the historicist interpretation construct that would not be able to survive with the
inductive conclusion that would deem all biblical prophecies conditional. He had been
compelled to admit that the traditional SDA prophetic classification that distinguished between
assumed classical or general prophecies and apocalyptic prophecies was simplistic, not
based in facts, and inaccurate, but had implied that the conditional messages were covenantal and
therefore limited to Israela notion that has no biblical basis because it ignores the Abrahamic
covenant in which the Gentiles or Nations outside Israel had an equal right to the covenantal
promises and a similar obligation to respect the covenants terms and requirements. He had
failed to provide an acceptable definition for the term apocalyptic, and therefore all his
consequent discussions based on the term have been theoretical and speculative. He had not been
able to provide an adequate clarification for the apocalyptic prophecies in Zechariah and their
fulfillment failure from the historicist exegetical perspective that argues that all apocalyptic
prophecies are unconditional and their fulfillment does not depend on human choice but on the
Divine plan, and therefore their fulfillment is certain and indomitable.64 He had failed in his
endeavor to produce a unified and documented perspective on the prophetic messages in the
Bible because he had not considered important factors that have an essential role in prophetic
interpretation: (1) Gods plan for mankind, (2) divine time, (3), divine foreknowledge, (4) human
freedom, and (5) human will. He will make his comments, instead on four interpretation factors
that he considers important for prophetic interpretation: (1) human freedom, (2) Divine
sovereignty, (3) word of God, and (4) divine foreknowledge.
Guidelines in Prophetic Interpretation
Johnsson had started backwards in his SDA historicist discussion on the claimed and
misunderstood conditional and the unconditional prophecies in the Bible. He should have
begun with the end part in his paper, the Theological Aspects Affecting Interpretation, but had
failed to do so and that error had affected his final conclusions. Although he submits to the
readers attention those factors now, the damage is done. He has failed to produce a document
that would bring order to the historicist prophetic classification and clarification to the erroneous
distinction between conditional and unconditional in prophetic interpretation. He now
continues the discussion with the factors that he had ignored in his finished research, and
examines the four criteria that, in his perspective, impact on prophetic interpretation: (1) human
freedom, (2) Divine sovereignty, (3) word of God, and (4) divine foreknowledge. States the
Adventist theologian:
During the course of our study of general prophecy and apocalyptic, we have noticed various theological
aspects that impinge on interpretation. We shall now give brief attention to them.
Theological Aspects Affecting Interpretation
Four theological matters relevant to conditional prophecy call for discussion: human freedom, divine
sovereignty, the word of God, and divine foreknowledge.
Human Freedom
The strength of the conditionality principle is in its recognition of this biblical truth. The God of the Bible,
although Creator and Lord of all, is love. It is the obedience of loving hearts that He seekshearts joined to
Him in covenant relationship. In order to make human freedom a reality, not merely fiction, he limits
His own freedom [emphasis added].
Human freedom is not absolute. Men and women are creatures, dependent on Yahweh even when they
flaunt their freedom in disobedience. Yet God does not coerce; He has given the ability to choose or
rejecteven Himself.
Human freedom comes into play in those circumstances where prophets bring messages of correction and
instruction. It is central to the promises and threatenings to Israel. It sometimes lies at the heart of a
prediction to a foreign nation, as in the case of Jonahs prophecy against Nineveh.
Human freedom is grounded in the unchanging character of Yahweh. Human freedom means that man may
change, as free choice is exercised. Change affects the relationship to Yahweh, bringing blessing or
cursing. Yahweh, however, changes not:26 His character is holy, his hatred of sin constant, His mercy longsuffering as human freedom is exercised.
Divine Sovereignty
While Yahwehs love makes human freedom a reality, He remains sovereign. 27 Throughout Scripture
human freedom appears within this overarching concept: the Bible is God-centered, not man-centered. So
there are limits which only Yahweh knows. Individuals, cities, nations pass beyond the invisible, silent
point; their probation closes. Yahweh destroys the world with the Flood; He sends Messiah in the fullness
of time; He eventually declares It is done! over the drama of the ages (Rev 16:17).
Throughout human history, apparently haphazardly, nations rise and fall, subject to time, chance, change.
That is the human, myopic perspective. But the Bible (and Ellen White) shows God in control,
superintending events on earth, working out His purposes toward a beneficent end. He is the One who
removeth kings, and setteth up kings The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to
whomsoever he will (Dan 2:21; 4:32, KJV).
It is interesting that Ellen White at times writes in terms of divine sovereignty rather than human freedom.
Like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path, Gods purposes know no haste and no delay,28
In a biblical philosophy of history, therefore, human freedom must be held in tension with divine
sovereignty. To deny the former is to make history deterministic; to repudiate the latter is to render it
chaotic, uncertain, meaningless.29
Word of God
This is an important biblical idea, especially in the OT. Adventists have not given it due place.
When God speaks, His will is carried out. His word carries with it authority and power: it creates a world
out of chaos (Gen 1:5-27; Ps 33:6, 9), it brings on the Flood (Gen 6:3, 7, 13-21), it rescues a nation out of
bondage (Exod 3:7-10), it dries up the Red Sea (Exod 14:15-18).
The word of God is dynamic. Because it comes out from God, it has the ability to effect what is proclaims.
That is why we read, for as the rain cometh down, and the show from heaven, and returneth not thither,
but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to
the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall
accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it (Isa 55:10-11, KJV).
Gods Word does not abrogate human freedom. It does not nullify Yahwehs compassion, His willingness
to accept the turning back to Him. So the prophets add the Who knows if? of hope to their messages
from the Lord to a stubborn, rebellious people.
While the Word of God does not cancel human freedom, it is clearly in the direction of the divine
sovereignty. It is the dynamic assurance, the effecting factor, that guarantees that Yahweh will do what He
has predicted.
Divine Foreknowledge
The biblical claim is specific and breathtaking: Yahweh can tell the future. This ability sets Him apart from
all other claims to deity: Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the
former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us
things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods; yes, do
good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together (Isa 41:22-23, KJV; see also 43:9; 44:78; 45:21; 46:9-11; 48:5; Rev 1:19).
Human freedom and divine sovereignty stand in tension; divine foreknowledge is a third term, apart from
both. It does not negate freedom. It foresees choices; 30 it does not determine them. And it presupposes
divine sovereignty.31 Therefore, human freedom must never be isolated from Gods sovereignty; and both
must acknowledge His foreknowledge.65
The theological information about human freedom, Divine sovereignty, word of God, and
divine foreknowledge that the Adventist historicist theologian has presented in the above
paragraphs would be acceptable for students in grammar school, but is a serious embarrassment
for the DARCOM series that claims unmatched professional level in the Adventist theological
circles. What Johnsson writes sounds like Maxwells bedtime stories. There is no academic
depth in what he writes, and nothing to stimulate the mind. The scholar introduces the human
freedom issues with the unbiblical and ridiculous claim that in order to make human
freedom a reality, not merely fiction, he limits His own freedom [emphasis added], but the
biblical support for his statement is absent.
The manner in which the writer discusses the human freedom in tension with the divine
sovereignty is so basic and simplistic that some readers might wonder whether Johnsson intends
for his article to contain the ABCs in the matter. Compared with Ericksons advanced and
complex discussion on the same topic,66 the Adventist historicists short comments on the
human freedom issue seem to be written for individuals who have no idea about the topic, and
the same can be said about Johnssons basic comments on the divine sovereignty and the divine
foreknowledge. The scholar appears to amaze himself with the notion that God is prescient, and
states the biblical claim is specific and breathtaking: Yahweh can tell the future.67 This biblical
truth must be indeed a shock for those who have never read the Bible, but it is an absolute
platitude for those who are familiar with it. As for the notion that Gods words can do things, and
that when God speaks things happen, had Johnsson known the word performative, he would
not have wasted a whole paragraph on the issue, but he would have rather mentioned the
Creation. For specific details on the topic, the SDA historicist theologians could have even read
some pages from a linguistics textbook that discuss Austins speech acts and the performative
verbs that can do things through spoken and written language.68
The God Who Is Outside Human Time
For an informed perspective about the Divine foreknowledge, a better discussion about
Gods relation to time would have been useful, and would have helped the curious and interested
readers to understand to a certain degree how it is possible that God knows the future. Because
Johnsson failed to provide this information, we will quote Erickson on the topic:
God is also infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to him. He was before time began. The
question, How old is God? Is simply inappropriate. He is no older now than a year ago, for infinity plus one
is no more than infinity. He simply is not restricted by the dimension of time.
God is the one who always is. He was, he is, he will be. Psalm 90:1-2 says, LORD, though hast been our
dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the
earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Jude 25 says, To the only God, our
Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now
and for ever. A similar thought is found in Ephesians 3:21. The use of expresssions such as the first and
the last and the Alpha and Omega serve to convey the same idea (Isa. 44:6; Rev. 1:8, 21:6, 22:13).
God is timeless. He does not grow or develop. There are no variations in his nature at different points
within his existence. The interests, knowledge, activities, and even personalities of humans change from
childhood to youth to adulthood to old age. With God there is no such change, however. He has always
been what he is.
The fact that God is not bound by time does not mean that he is not conscious of the succession of points of
time. He knows what is now occurring in human experience. He is aware that events occur in a particular
order. Yet he is equally aware of all points of that order simultaneously [emphasis added]. This
transcendence over time has been likened to a person who sits on a steeple while he watches a parade. He
sees all parts of the parade at the different points on the route rather than only what is going past him at the
moment. He is aware of what is passing each point of the route. So God also is aware of what is
happening, has happened, and will happen at each point in time [emphasis added]. Yet at any given
point within time he is also conscious of the distinction between what is now occurring, what has been, and
what will be.15 69
Conditions In Apocalyptic Prophecies

The DARCOM scholar ends his article with a seven point conclusion in which he admits
that conditionalism is an important biblical concept that needs to be considered in prophetic
interpretation, that not all Divine predictions are conditional, that in the covenant between Israel
and God conditions are most often present, and that although the apocalyptic prophecies are for
the most part unconditional, there are also conditional apocalyptic prophecies. States the
Adventist scholar:
Conclusions
1. Conditionality is a valid principle of biblical interpretation. It arises from a due regard for the concern
with human freedom that undergirds the biblical accounts of Gods dealings with the human race.
2. Conditionality, however, may not be used indiscriminately in prophetic interpretation. Just as human
freedom stands in tension with divine sovereignty in the Scriptures, so conditionality must give way to the
fixed predictions of God in many prophetic passages. All biblical predictions are not conditional.
3. The prophecies made to Israel in a covenant setting are conditional. They are applications of the law of
the covenant rather than predictive prophecies per se. They are the usual occurrence of conditional
predictions in the Bible.32
4. Since conditionality is found most frequently in the covenant setting, the term conditional prophecy
itself is misleading.
5. In prophecies of the first and second advents, conditionality is not a major factor. These predictions are
predicated on the divine intervention in history as God asserts His sovereignty to effect His will in working
out the plan of salvation.33
6. Apocalyptic predictions are usually unconditional. Only where the covenant setting with Israel
predominates is conditionality present [emphasis added]; Elsewhere the divine sovereignty and
foreknowledge portray history on the grand scale.
7. It is vital, therefore, that any biblical prophecy be studied carefully in interpretation. We by no means
rule out conditionality; we merely suggest that we may not without due consideration employ
conditionality as the key to interpretation. We must first study carefully the original context, noting the type
of literature. (Is it general prophecy or apocalyptic? Does it fall within the covenant promises and
threatenings?) Finally, we should see what application, if any, another inspired writer makes of the
prophecy.70
The extensive examination we have conducted on the article, Conditionality in Biblical

Prophecy With Particular Reference to Apocalyptic,71 allows us to state with confidence that the
historicist writer has failed to accomplish his goal to establish based on unquestionable empirical
evidence that conditionalism is not a general rule in the prophetic messages. The Adventist
theologians research is incomplete and inadequate, and his final conclusions seem to be biased
due to the SDA historicist dogmatic and tendentious position that does not permit certain
apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel to be understood as unconditional. The SDA theologian is not
able to follow the truth wherever it leads. The SDA historicist perspective constrains his research
and taints his conclusions.
V. Prophecies and Their Contingencies

Unfulfilled Prophecies A Deep Puzzle
The documents we have examined so far have not been able to provide an adequate
clarification and solution for an issue that has remained a theological paradox or puzzlethe
numerous unfulfilled prophecies in the OT and NT. States Chisholm:
A close analysis of OT prophecy reveals that many prophecies were not fulfilled either in part or in whole. 1
In response to this, one may retreat to one of two extremes: (1) discount the supernatural revelatory nature
of OT prophecy (a typical modern critical approach); or (2) claim that all unrealized prophecy pertains to
the eschaton (a typical popular approach). The first of these extremes turns the prophets into wishful
thinkers at best or political propagandists at worst and robs their messages of authority. The second extreme
turns the prophets into crystal gazers detached from their contemporaries. By uprooting prophecy from its
historical soil, it invites sensationalistic and overly contemporized interpretation in the modern context in
which the prophecy is transplanted.2 1
Based on the false notion that all unrealized prophecy pertains to the eschaton,2 most
theologians have focused on a hermeneutic that seeks in those prophecies specific time data
about Gods plan for mankind. This fallacious approach to prophetic interpretation has produced
wild assumptions and speculations about the future and the end of the world. Comments Pratt:
The last half of our century has witnessed an explosion of interest in what biblical prophecies say about our
future. Record sales of Hal Lindseys Late Great Planet Earth (3 million), and John Walvoords
Armageddon: Oil and the Middle East Crisis (1.4 million),1 indicate that many English speaking
evangelicals read the Bible to find out what will happen in the future and how current events fit within that
chronological framework.
Recent events have only encouraged enthusiasm for this hermeneutic. Moral decay in western culture has
raised fears of cataclysmic divine retribution. Political troubles in various parts of the world have been
interpreted as the initial stages of historys grand finale. As a result, evangelicals have developed nothing
less than a monomania in the interpretation of biblical prophecy. More than anything else, they try to
discover Gods plan for the future and what role events today play within that divine program.
Our study will challenge this widespread hermeneutical orientation by exploring the role of historical
contingencies intervening between Old Testament predictions and their fulfillments. As we will see, events
taking place after predictions often directed the course of history in ways not anticipated by prophetic
announcements. Sometimes future events conformed to a prophets words; sometimes they did not. For this
reason, neither prophets nor their listeners knew precisely what eventualities to expect. If this proposal is
correct, it indicates that the emphasis of many contemporary interpreters is misplaced, and that we must
find other hermeneutical interests in biblical prophecy. 3
Prophetic Message and Its Language

The first reason for this hermeneutical confusion seems to be the fact that the theologians
and scholars have not paid due attention to the prophetic language and its specific role in the
divine communications to the humans. There is more to the prophetic language than has been
considered so far, and Chisholm wants to alert the theologians and scholars about this important
matter. He states:
II. THE FUNCTIONAL NATURE OF PROPHETIC LANGUAGE
The language of prophecy, like most language, has a deeper function, beyond being simply informative or
descriptive. Sandy correctly affirms, the function of language may prevail over form. 3 As the typical wife
or husband can attest after listening to a distraught spouse pour out his or her heart after a hard day, words
are often intended to be more than informative. They are frequently chosen because of the expected
emotional impact they will have on a hearer and for their capacity to motivate behavior. 4 When dealing
with language, one must ask: What do the words convey about the speakers feelings and values? What is
the real point that is being made? What is the speakers primary purpose? It is especially necessary to ask
these questions of the emotionally charged language of prophecy.
Two types of discourse are prominent in prophetic speech. The prophets utilize a combination of expository
and hortatory discourse (traditionally referred to as forthtelling) to accuse their listeners of covenantal
violations and to exhort them to change their behavior. They also employ predictive discourse
(foretelling) to support their accusations and appeals. Though the basic categories of forth telling and
foretelling have long been recognized, their relationship has not always been fully understood or
appreciated.
To appreciate how these discourse types contribute to prophetic speech, one must examine their language
function.5 Expository-hortatory discourse has evaluative and dynamic functions. According to Macky,
evaluative speech expresses the speakers judgment on the quality of something, while dynamic speech is
intended to change hearers personally. As Macky observes, the latter can be affective (aimed at arousing
emotions), pedagogical (intended to illuminate darkness), or transforming (intended to change hearers
attitudes, values and commitments, often by first arousing emotion and illuminating the darkness). 6
Predictive discourse can be performative or dynamic in function. Macky explains that performative
language performs some non-linguistic act, such as a judge decreeing, The defendant is acquitted. 7
Predictive discourse is performative when it announces Gods intentions unconditionally, for the prophecy
sets in motion a series of events that leads to its fulfillment. 8 Some popular views of prophecy, as well as
some higher-critical approaches, assume that all or most predictions (at least those not marked by if or
the like) are unconditional and therefore performative. However, an examination of the evidence suggests
that prophetic predictive discourse is often (usually?) dynamic. It announces Gods intentions conditionally
and is intended to motivate a positive response to the expository-hortatory discourse it typically
accompanies. In this case, the prophecys predictive element is designed to
prevent (in the case of a judgment announcement) or facilitate (in the case of a salvation announcement) its
fulfillment.
Clendenen argues that the hortatory dimension is foundational. He asserts, prophetic books are by nature
hortatory. Salvation oracles present incentives motivating change, while judgment oracles present the
deterrents to refusing the change.9 He adds:
Recognizing the nature of the prophetic books as coherent behavioral exhortation, that is, hortatory
discourse, has important implications. In such discourses the most prominent element is naturally the
behavioral change or changes being advocated. All the other elements in the discourse must relate to one or
more of the commands or exhortations, and it would be a misuse of Scripture to listen to only one of the
supplementary elements, such as predictive prophecy, without relating it to the central message of the
book.10 4
Prophetic Message and Contingencies

The second reason for the mistaken perspective on the prophecies in the Bible is the fact
that the theologians and scholars have not given due consideration to the historical contingencies
and their impact on prophetic fulfillment. States Pratt:
Many evangelicals, especially those in the Reformed tradition, may find it difficult to imagine prophets of
Yahweh predicting events that do not occur. After all, the prophets were privy to the heavenly court. They
received their messages from the transcendent Creator. May we even entertain the possibility that
subsequent events significantly effected the fulfillments of their predictions? Does this notion not
contradict the immutability of divine decrees?
By and large, critical interpreters simply dismiss these theological concerns as irrelevant. Traditional
critical scholars tend to deny the possibility of prescience through divine revelation. A prophecy that gives
the impression of foreknowledge actually is vaticinium ex eventu. God may know the future, but humans
certainly cannot. In recent decades, the repudiation of divine transcendence in process theology has
challenged traditional theological concerns from another direction. For example, Carroll urges that:
Talk about God knowing the future is unnecessary ... as process theology makes so clear. The
hermeneutical gymnastics required to give any coherence to the notion of God knowing and revealing the
future in the form of predictions to the prophets does no religious community any credit. 2
When divinity is thought to be in process with the universe, not even God knows the future.
Despite these widespread tendencies, interpreters of the prophets who stand in continuity with historical
expressions of the Reformed tradition must strongly affirm the immutability of Gods character and eternal
decrees. The immutability of divine decrees is particularly important for our study, and Calvinism is
remarkably uniform in this matter.
Calvin himself spoke in no uncertain terms about Gods decrees:
God so attends to the regulations of individual events, and they all so proceed from his set plan, that
nothing takes place by chance. 3
In Calvins view, God has a fixed plan for the universe. This plan includes every event in history in such
detail that nothing takes place by happenstance.
Calvinistic scholastics in the seventeenth century often echoed Calvins language. As the Westminster
Confession of Faith put it,
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably
ordain whatsoever comes to pass.4
Reformed theologians in America two centuries later also used similar language. Charles Hodge, for
instance, insisted that God is:
Immutable in his plans and purposes. Infinite in wisdom, there can be no error in their conception; infinite
in power, there can be no failure in their accomplishment.5
As this sampling suggests, the Reformed tradition has summarized the teaching of Scripture on this subject
with one voice.6 From eternity past, Gods immutable decrees fixed every detail of history. Nothing can
alter these decrees, nor any part of the history they determined.
In line with these formulations, we must approach prophetic predictions with full assurance that historical
contingencies have never interrupted the immutable decrees of God. No uncertainties ever lay before him,
no power can thwart the slightest part of his plan. 7 Yahweh spoke through his prophets with full knowledge
and control of what was going to happen in the near and distant future. Any outlook that denies this
theological conviction is less than adequate. 5
Prophetic Message and the Providence

The third reason for prophetic messages misinterpretation is a defective and incomplete
perspective about the Gods providence and the Divine transcendence and immanence in relation
to the Creation and the historical contingencies. Continues Pratt:
Up to this point, we have mentioned only one side of the theological framework that surrounds the subject
of prophecy and intervening historical contingencies. To understand these matters more fully, we must also
give attention to the providence of God, that is, his immanent historical interactions with creation. The
Reformed tradition has emphasized the transcendence of God, including his eternal decrees. This
theological accent has many benefits, but it also has a liability. An overemphasis on divine transcendence
has at times obscured the reality and complexity of divine providence.
We need only to review historical expressions of divine providence in the Reformed tradition to correct this
problem. Calvin, for instance, not only spoke of Gods immutable plan; he also acknowledged Gods real
involvement with history. To be sure, he often described biblical accounts of God contemplating,
questioning, repenting, and the like as anthropomorphisms. 8 Yet, Calvin also insisted that God is actually
engaged in historical processes. As he put it, the omnipotent God is watchful, effective, active ... engaged
in ceaseless activity.9
Beyond this, Calvin viewed divine providence as a complex reality. Providence is the determinative
principle of all things, but sometimes God works through an intermediary, sometimes without an
intermediary, sometimes contrary to every intermediary. 10 God did not simply make an eternal plan that
fixed all events. He also sees that his plan is carried out by working through, without, and contrary to
created means. Calvin balanced his affirmation of the immutability of Gods decrees with an
acknowledgement of Gods complex involvement in the progression of history.
The Westminster Confession of Faith also displays a deep appreciation of divine providence. The fifth
chapter speaks to the issue at hand.
Although in relation to the decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly,
yet by the same providence he often orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes. 11
This passage acknowledges that all events are fixed by eternal decrees, but secondary causes
play a vital role in the providential outworking of those decrees.
How do secondary causes interact? The Confession affirms that they work together either necessarily
(necessario), freely (libere), or contingently (contingenter).12 It is important for our purposes to point out
that contingencies are acknowledged as historical realities. The Westminster assembly did not view the
universe as a gigantic machine in which each event mechanically necessitated the next. On the contrary, in
the providence of God, events take place freely and contingently as well. 6
Prophetic Message and Human Choice

Gods plan, his providence, transcendence, and immanence, do not interfere with the
human freedom, free will, and choice. Although the above divine attributes seem to be in tension
with the human attributes, there is a balance between them that allows interaction without
obstruction. Rather, it seems that the choices people make determine the directions history will
take, because human choice is one of the ordinary ways in which God works out his
immutable decrees.7 Pratt explains this matter as follows:
In this sense, belief in Gods immutability does not negate the importance of historical contingencies,
especially human choice. Under the sovereign control of God, the choices people make determine the
directions history will take.13 If we make one choice, certain results will occur. If we choose another
course, other events will follow [emphasis added]. To be sure, God is free to work without, above, and
against [second causes] at his pleasure, but in his ordinary providence, [he] maketh use of means. 14 That
is to say, human choice is one of the ordinary ways in which God works out his immutable decrees
[emphasis added]. In accordance with his all encompassing fixed plan, God often waits to see what his
human subjects will do and directs the future on the basis of what they decide.
Divine providence provides a perspective that complements divine immutability. Old Testament prophets
revealed the word of the unchanging Yahweh, but prophets spoke for God in space and time, not before the
foundations of the world. By definition, therefore, they did not utter immutable decrees, but providential
declarations. For this reason, we should not be surprised to find that intervening historical contingencies,
especially human reactions, had significant effects on the way predictions were realized. In fact, we will see
that Yahweh often spoke through his prophets, watched the reactions of people, and then determined
how to carry through with his declarations [emphasis added].8
Divine Predictions and Their Constraints

That numerous, but not all the divine predictions are under various constraints, and that
contingent factors impact on them is a fact that that can be supported with multiple biblical
examples. Still, there has been some debate in this matter because some theologians have been
inclined to restrict the significance of contingencies to a small class of predictions, while the
other have attributed a more central role to human choice and divine freedom.9 States Pratt:
Most interpreters have recognized that intervening historical contingencies play some role in the predictionfulfillment dynamic of Old Testament prophecy. Yet, opinions vary widely on how this function should be
construed. One end of the spectrum tends to restrict the significance of contingencies to a small class of
predictions.15 The other end of the spectrum gives a more central role to human choice and divine
freedom.16
One source of confusion in the discussions of these matters has been a failure to distinguish among
different kinds of prophetic predictions. By and large, analyses have focused on the content of prophecies
as determinative of the role of historical contingencies. We will try to bring some clarity to the discussion
by distinguishing several formal features of Old Testament predictions. 10
From this conditions or constraints perspective, Pratt distinguishes three important

and relevant prophetic categories, 1) predictions qualified by conditions, 2) predictions
qualified by assurances, and 3) predictions without qualifications,11 and explains these three
groups in detail. He states:
[Predictions That Include Conditions]
First, a survey of Old Testament prophecies uncovers a number of passages in which prophets offered
predictions qualified by conditions. They explicitly made fulfillments dependent on the responses of those
who listened. This qualification was communicated in many ways, but we will limit ourselves to a
sampling of passages with the surface grammar of conditional sentences. 17
Some conditional prophecies were bi-polar. They declared two directions listeners may have taken, one
leading to curse and the other leading to blessing. For instance, in Isaiah 1:19-20 we read,
If you are ready and obey, you will eat the best produce of the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be
eaten by the sword.18 For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.
Isaiah made two options explicit. Obedience would lead to eating the best of the promised land;
disobedience would lead to being devoured by an enemys sword.
In a similar fashion, Jeremiah approached Zedekiah with two choices for the house of David:
For if you thoroughly carry out these commands, then Davidic kings who sit on his throne will come
through the gates of this palace, riding in chariots and on horses, each one accompanied by his officials 19
and his army.20 But if you do not obey these commands, declares Yahweh, I swear by myself that this
palace will fall into ruin (Jer 22:4-5).
The future of Judahs nobility depended on human actions. Great victory and blessings were in store for
obedient kings, but rebellious kings would bring ruin to the palace. The prophetic prediction was explicitly
qualified in both ways.
These passages introduce an important consideration. When prophets spoke about things to come, they did
not necessarily refer to what the future would be. At times, they proclaimed only what might be. Prophets
were attempting to create certain responses in the community21 by making their predictions explicitly
conditional. They spoke of potential, not necessary future events. Thus, their predictions warned of
judgment and offered blessings in order to motivate listeners to participate in determining their own future.
As we will see, this feature of Old Testament prophecy is central to understanding the predictionfulfillment dynamic.
Conditional predictions also appear as uni-polar. In these cases, the prophets spoke explicitly of one set of
choices and results, and only implied other possibilities. Sometimes they focused on a negative future. For
instance, Isaiah warned Ahaz,
If you are not faithful, then you will not stand at all. (Isa 7:9)
Isaiah told Ahaz that he faced doom, if he did not respond with faith in Yahweh. He did not mention any
other options in the oracle.
Other times, prophets pointed to a positive future. In his famous temple sermon, Jeremiah announced,
If you dramatically improve your ways and your actions and actually show justice to each other, if you do
not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed22 innocent blood in this place, and if you
do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, the land I gave your
forefathers forever and ever (Jer 7:5-7).
The prophet told the people of Judah that their continuance in the land of promise was dependent on their
obedience. He did not spell out other contingencies.
Uni-polar conditional predictions point to another important feature of Old Testament prophecy. Prophets
did not always speak explicitly of all possible conditions related to their predictions. The context of Isaiahs
uni-polar word to Ahaz (Isa 7:9) implied that the king would be blessed if he relied on Yahweh (Isa 7:3-9).
Jeremiahs words concerning the temple (Jer 7:5-7) warned of exile for disobedience (Jer 7:8-15). Yet, the
explicit conditions mentioned in the oracles themselves only focused on one side of each situation. We
should not be surprised, therefore, to find that in other circumstances Old Testament prophets did not state
all conditions applying to their predictions. In fact, we will see that considering unexpressed conditions is
vital to a proper interpretation of prophecy.12
[Predictions That Include Assurances]

We now turn to the other end of the spectrum where prophets offered predictions qualified by assurances.
Guarantees of different sorts accompanied prophetic oracles. We will mention three categories.
First, on three occasions in the book of Jeremiah, the prophet opposed those who hoped for Jerusalems
deliverance from Babylonian dominion by revealing that Yahweh forbade intercession for the city. For
instance, God declared that exile was coming for the residents of Jerusalem (Jer 7:15), but he quickly
added, Do not pray on behalf of this people nor lift up any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me,
for I will not listen to you (Jer 7:16).
In Jeremiah 11:11a, Yahweh announced an inescapable doom of judgment for Jerusalem. To confirm this
prediction, the oracle continued, And they may cry to me, but I will not listen to them (Jer 11:11b). To
make matters even more certain, God instructed Jeremiah once again, Not even you (wth) should pray for
this people (Jer 11:14).
Similarly, Yahweh announced the sentence of exile in Jeremiah 14:10 and turned to the prophet for a third
time, Do not pray for any good thing for this people (Jer 14:11). In addition, Yahweh insisted that he
would not pay attention to their fasting, nor their burnt and grain offerings; he would undoubtedly destroy
them (Jer 14:12). Later in the same context, Yahweh revealed his utter determination to judge by saying he
would not relent, even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me (Jer 15:1).
A second type of assurance amounts to denials that Yahwehs intentions will be reversed. For the most part,
these passages assert that Yahweh will not turn back (swb) or repent (nhm).
For example, the well-known oracles of judgment in the opening chapters of Amos repeat the same formula
at the beginning of each proclamation.
For three sins of [name of country], even for four, I will not turn back (Amos 1:3,6,9,13; 2:1,4,6).
The words I will not turn back (sybnw) expressed Yahwehs determination to carry through with the
sentences of each oracle. Turn back (wb) appears frequently in the Old Testament with God as subject
to denote a change of divine disposition toward a course of action. 23 To the delight of his Israelite audience,
Amos announced that Yahweh was not simply threatening the foreign nations. Yet, Amos also used the
same expression to make it plain that God would not reverse himself regarding their judgment either (Amos
2:4,6).
Similar assurances occur in the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Isaiah confirms the promise of
Yahwehs victory over all nations as a word that will not be revoked (wlyswb) (Isa 45:23). Jeremiah
assured his listeners that Jerusalems destruction was sure by adding, Yahwehs anger will not turn back
(l yswb) (Jer 23:20, see parallel in 30:24). In Jeremiah 4:28 Yahweh offers an additional assurance: I will
not relent (wl nhmty) and I will not turn back from it (wl swb mmnh). Along these same lines, Ezekiel
reported Yahwehs word, And I will not relent (wl nhm24) (Ezk 24:14) to assure of Jerusalems coming
devastation.
A third type of confirmation appears when Yahweh takes solemn oaths. Divine oaths appear in the prophets
in the third and first persons. Frequently, the typical verbal expressions nsb`/ nsb`ty appear. Amos declared
that the northern kingdoms destruction was confirmed by oath (Amos 4:2; 6:8; 8:7). Isaiah and Jeremiah
announced that Yahweh had sworn to destroy Israels enemies (Isa 14:24; Jer 49:13; 51:14). Jeremiah
insisted that the majority of Jews exiled to Egypt would die there (Jer 44:26). Twice, Isaiah confirmed
Israels future restoration by divine oath (Isa 54:9; 62:8).
Divine oaths also appear in the form As Yahweh lives ... (hy yhwh) and As I live ... (hy ny). Ezekiel
confirmed Jerusalems destruction with this formula (Ezk 5:11; 14:16,18,20; 20:3,31,33; 33:27). The
destruction of other nations was assured by divine oath (Ezk 35:6,11; Zeph 2:9). Judgments against certain
individuals took this form in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer 22:24; 44:26; Ezk 17:16,19; 34:8). Finally, Isaiah
and Ezekiel confirmed the restoration of Jerusalem by reporting Yahwehs oath (Isa 49:18; Ezk 20:33). 25
Predictions qualified by assurances reveal two important features of Old Testament prophecy. On the one
hand, these passages make it plain that some predicted events were inevitable. With reference to these
declarations, Yahweh would not listen to prayers, turn back, relent, or violate his oaths. Nevertheless, we
must remember that these kinds of predictions are few in number and usually not very specific in their
descriptions of the future. They assure that some events will take place, but they do not guarantee how,
to what extent, when, or a host of other details. As we will see, these details are subject to historical
contingencies [emphasis added].
On the other hand, this class of prophecies also indicates that not all predictions shared this heightened
certainty. Yahweh forbade prayers in response to some oracles precisely because prayer usually had the
potential of effecting outcomes (Jer 26:19; Jonah 3:10; Amos 7:1-9). Similarly, Yahweh declared that he
would not turn back or relent from some courses of action because he normally left those options open
(Joel 2:14; Amos 7:3,6; Jon 3:9). Finally, at times Yahweh took an oath to add weight to a prediction
precisely because not all predictions had this solemn status.26 13
[Predictions That Have No Conditions]

As we have seen, a number of passages contain explicit conditions and assurances. Now we will give
attention to a third category of passages: predictions without qualifications. These materials contain neither
expressed conditions nor assurances.
From the outset, we may say without hesitation that intervening historical contingencies had some bearing
on this class of predictions. The Old Testament abounds with examples of unqualified predictions of events
that did not take place. For instance, Jonah announced, Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned
(Jonah 3:4), but God spared the city (Jonah 3:10). Shemiah told Rehoboam, You have abandoned me; so, I
now abandon you to Shishak (2 Chr 12:5), but the attack was mollified (2 Chr 12:7-8). Huldah declared to
Josiah, I am bringing disaster on this place and its inhabitants (2 Kgs 22:16), but the punishment for
Jerusalem was later postponed (2 Kgs 22:18-20). Micah said to Hezekiah, Zion will be plowed like a
field by Sennacherib (Mic 3:12; cf. Jer 26:18), but the invasion fell short of conquering the city (2 Kgs
19:20-35). In each of the examples, the predicted future did not take place. What caused these turns of
events? Each text explicitly sights human responses as the grounds for the deviations. The people of
Nineveh (Jon 3:6), the leaders of Judah (2 Chr 12:6), Josiah (2 Kgs 22:17) and Hezekiah (Jer 26:19)
repented or prayed upon hearing the prophetic word.
These passages indicate that the fulfillment of at least some unqualified predictions were subject to
the contingency of human response. Conditions did not have to be stated explicitly to be operative
[emphasis added]. As Calvin put it,
Even though [the prophets] make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that
these nonetheless contain a tacit condition [emphasis added].27
These observations raise an important question. How should we relate the presence of tacit conditions to
the well-known Mosaic criterion of false prophets in Deuteronomy 18:22?
If what a prophet proclaims in the name of Yahweh does not occur 28 or come about, that is a message
Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously.
At first glance, this passage appears to present a straightforward test. Failed predictions mark false
prophets.29 As parsimonious as this interpretation may be, it does not account for the many predictions from
canonical (and thus true) prophets that were not realized.
Interpreters have taken different approaches to this difficulty. Many critical scholars treat Deuteronomy
18:22 as a uniquely deuteronomistic perspective that is contradicted by other biblical traditions.30
Evangelicals usually argue that Moses test should be taken as the general rule to which there are a few
exceptions.31
An alternative outlook would be to assume that Moses and his audience realized that unqualified
predictions had implied conditions. If this dynamic was well-known, then he did not have to repeat it
explicitly when he offered his criterion in Deuteronomy 18:22. In this view, Moses test instructed Israel to
expect a prediction from a true prophet to come about, unless significant intervening contingencies
interrupted.
This understanding of the Mosaic criterion may explain why so many passages highlight the historical
contingencies that interrupted many fulfillments. Old Testament writers accounted for the Mosaic test of
false prophets by pointing out why the predictions of true prophets sometimes did not come true. For
example, the writer of Jonah explains how the king of Nineveh ordered fasting and mourning by every
person (hdm) and by every beast (whbhmh), herd (hbqr), and flock (whsn) (Jon 3:7). The Chronicler
used one of his most poignant theological terms (kn`) when he said that Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah
humbled themselves (2 Chr 12:6).32 The writer of Kings described Josiahs ritual tearing of his robe (2
Kgs 22:11). The specificity of these passages suggests that so long as Israelites could point to significant
intervening contingencies, they had no trouble accepting interrupted predictions as originating with
Yahweh.
While it seems indisputable that historical contingencies effected unqualified predictions, evangelicals have
differed over the breadth of their influence. Did tacit conditions apply only to a small class of unqualified
predictions? Or did conditions attach to all of these prophecies?
An answer to this question appears in the eighteenth chapter of Jeremiah, the prophets experience at the
potters house. This passage stood against the backdrop of false views concerning the inviolability of
Jerusalem. Many Jerusalemites opposed Jeremiah because they believed divine protection for Jerusalem
was entirely unconditional (e.g. Jer 7:4). Jeremiah 18:1-12 amounted to a rebuttal of this false security. It
stated that all unqualified predictions, even those concerning Jerusalem, operated with implied conditions.
This chapter opens with the prophet visiting a potters house and experiencing a symbolic event. A potter
worked with ruined clay, and he reshaped it into another form (Jer 18:1-4). Immediately, Yahweh revealed
the significance of this event to the prophet. The house of Israel is like clay in the hands of Yahweh, the
Potter; he may do with her as he pleases (Jer 18:5-6). Yahweh elaborated further on the analogy in the
following verses:33
If at some time I say regarding any nation or kingdom that I will uproot, tear down, or destroy, and if that
nation about which I spoke34 repents of its evil, then I may relent35 from the evil I planned to do to it. And
if at some other time I say regarding any nation or kingdom that I will build it up and plant it, and if it does
evil in my eyes, not listening to my voice, then I may relent from the good thing which I said I would do for
it. (Jer 18:7-10)
Several elements in this passage point to its categorical nature. First, each sentence begins with an
emphatically general temporal reference. The expressions at some time (rg`), and at some other time
(wrg`) emphasize that Yahwehs words apply to every situation.36 No particular circumstances limit the
protases. Second, the anarthrous expression any nation or kingdom (`l gwy w`l mmlkh) also points to the
categorical nature of the policy. Yahwehs responsiveness applies to all nations. Third, these verses
describe the two major types of prophetic prediction: judgment (Jer 18:7-8) and salvation (Jer 18:9-10). In
terms of form critical analysis, all prophetic oracles gravitate in one or both of these directions. Referring to
these two major directions of all predictions underscores the categorical nature of the dynamic described
here.37
The universal perspective of Jeremiah 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were
subject to implicit conditions. Sincere repentance had the potential of affecting every unqualified
prophecy of judgment. Flagrant disobedience had the potential of negating every unqualified
prophecy of prosperity [emphasis added].
A survey of Scripture reveals that the descriptions of Gods reactions in Jeremiah 18 are only
representative. Yahweh reacted to human responses in many different ways. At various times, he
completely reversed (Am 7:1-9), postponed (e.g. 1 Kgs 21:28-29; 2 Kgs 22:18-20), mollified (e.g. 2 Chr
12:1-12) and carried through (2 Sam 12:22-23) with predictions. Yahweh exercised great latitude because
his responses were situation specific, appropriate for the particularities of each event. Nevertheless, a basic
pattern was always at work. The realizations of all unqualified predictions were subject to modification
as Yahweh reacted to his peoples responses [emphasis added]. 14
VI. Conditionalism Limitation Has No Basis

The SDA Perspective on Conditionalism
The Glacier View theologians and scholars were confronted with an important issue that
had been an essential factor in Fords dismissalthe assumed SDA historicist difference
between the claimed classic or general prophecies assumed to be conditional at all times,
and the claimed apocalyptic prophecies assumed to be unconditional under all
circumstances. Pfandl explains this perspective as follows:
18:7-10). Classical prophets tied God's activities to events in human history.5
appearance of the kingdom of God. Hence it is not conditional [emphasis added]. In other words, it is
not dependent on the human response, e.g., Christ's first coming was not dependent on Israels or Judah's
obedience. He came, when the fullness of the time [out lined in Dan. 9:24-27] had come (Gal. 4:4,
NKJV), even though the Jews were not ready to receive Him.
Similarly, the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation which point towards the time of the end and
the Second Coming are independent of any human response. In apocalyptic prophecy we become
spectators to events on a world stage; we are seeing the divine foreknowledge unfold the course of
the future [emphasis added].6
2,300 evenings and mornings and the three and a half times in Daniel 7 and 8, therefore, are not
fulfillment.1
The Position Contradicts the Bible Truth

This dogmatic SDA perspective could not be renounced even when the factual biblical
evidence opposed the Adventist claim. Johnsson makes clear the reason for the resistance against
the biblical factual evidence that all prophecies are contingent:
Seventh-day Adventists always have believed that a principle of conditionality operated in that kind of
Bible prophecy which expected human response [emphasis added]. On the other hand they regard the
grand prophecies of Daniel land Revelation [emphasis added], depicting the struggle between good and
evil and the ultimate victory and establishment of Gods eternal kingdom, as revelations of His
foreknowledge and an evidence of His sovereignty [emphasis added].
In recent years, however, it has been argued by some that all prophecyincluding not only general
prophecy as it appears in the major and minor prophets but also the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and
Revelationshould be regarded as conditional prophecy. That is, it is suggested that the possible
fulfillment of any prophecy in its primary intent was conditional on the obedience of Gods people
[emphasis added]. Such a position, were it to be proved valid, would affect radically Adventist
interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation [emphasis added]. 2
The reason, as the readers could well see, is not biblical evidence that the SDA position
has a solid biblical basis, but the fear that the acceptance that all prophecies are contingent would
produce a radical change in the unique Adventist interpretation for Daniel and Revelation, and
would negate the claim the SDA Church claims for a unique interpretation contribution to the
Christian hermeneutics.
Arguments against the SDA Perspective
Pratt, though, rebuts the SDA unconditionalism claim, and argues that there is ample
and indisputable biblical evidence that all biblical prophecies are contingent, whether or not the
conditions are present in the biblical text, that is, whether or not such conditions are explicit and
obvious tacit 3or assumed. He states:
The universal perspective of Jeremiah 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were
subject to implicit conditions. Sincere repentance had the potential of effecting every unqualified
prophecy of judgment. Flagrant disobedience had the potential of negating every unqualified
prophecy of prosperity [emphasis added].
A survey of Scripture reveals that the descriptions of Gods reactions in Jeremiah 18 are only
representative. Yahweh reacted to human responses in many different ways. At various times, he
completely reversed (Am 7:1-9), postponed (e.g. 1 Kgs 21:28-29; 2 Kgs 22:18-20), mollified (e.g. 2 Chr
12:1-12) and carried through (2 Sam 12:22-23) with predictions. Yahweh exercised great latitude
because his responses were situation specific, appropriate for the particularities of each event.
Nevertheless, a basic pattern was always at work. The realizations of all unqualified predictions were
subject to modification as Yahweh reacted to his peoples responses [emphasis added].
Many evangelical interpreters have resisted adopting this categorical outlook. By and large they limit
conditionality to predictions that exhibit two features in their content. First, the prophecy must have
an imminent fulfillment. That is to say, it must refer to the near future38 or to an event which is
fairly proximate in time and space. 39 Second, the prediction must depend on some act of obedience
or repentance on the part of the prophets contemporaries,40 or on the free actions of the prophets
contemporaries [emphasis added].41
Advocates of limiting conditionality in these ways have offered little support for their views from the
prophetic corpus. Instead, they tend simply to point to the contents of prophecies they already believe
are inviolable such as the promise of Messiah, final judgment, or in some cases, to modern Israels
right to the land of Canaan.42 Predictions regarding these and related theological concerns are
deemed unconditional [emphasis added].
The lack of argumentation makes it difficult to respond to these views. We may make only a few
comments. First, it begs the question to argue that certain prophecies are unconditional because they
speak of matters that are unconditionally fixed. Enormous theological biases guide such evaluations
based on a predictions content. Second, no such limitations on conditionality appear in Jeremiah
18:1-12 [emphasis added]. As we have seen, the language of the passage is so categorical that it would
seem necessary for an absolutely unconditional prophecy to state explicitly that it is an exception to the
rule. Jeremiah 18 sets no limitation of a particular time frame or subject matter. In fact, the only
qualification is that historical contingencies must intervene between the prediction and its fulfillment.
To sum up, we have seen that intervening historical contingencies had a bearing on all three major
types of prophetic predictions. Some predictions explicitly told the original listeners that their actions
would effect outcomes. A few passages assured that a prediction would be realized, but precisely how
that outcome would look still remained subject to contingencies. Beyond this, unqualified predictions,
the bulk of the prophetic material, always operated with tacit conditions. In all cases, significant
responses preceding fulfillments had the potential of effecting to some degree how Yahweh would
direct the future [emphasis added].4
Gods Eternal and Unchangeable Plan

That God has a fixed plan for the humans, and that his plan will have an ultimate and
complete fulfillment despite human opposition or other contrarian influences is a biblical truth
that cannot be contested. States Erickson:
Finally, there is the Christian doctrine of the divine plan, which affirms that an all-wise, all-powerful
good God has from all eternity planned what is to occur and that history is carrying out his
intentions [emphasis added]. There is a definite goal toward which history is progressing. History is not,
then, merely chance happenings. And the force causing its movements is not impersonal atoms or blind
fate. It is, rather, a loving God with whom we can have a personal relationship. We may look forward with
assurance, then, toward the attainment of the telos of the universe. And we may align our lives with what
we know will be the outcome of history.5
Gods plan is efficacious. What he has purposed from eternity will surely come to pass [emphasis added].
The Lord says, As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it standFor the Lord of
hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (Isa.
14:24, 27). He will not change his mind, nor will he discover hitherto unknown considerations which
will cause him to alter his intentions [emphasis added]. My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all
my purpose, says the Lord in Isaiah 46:10. Because the counsel of the Lord is from all eternity and is
perfect, it will never fade nor be replaced; it endures forever: The counsel of the Lord stands for ever, the
thoughts of his heart to all generations (Ps. 33:11). 6
Prophets Trusted the Divine Revelation

The above statements seem to be in contradiction with the conditionalist perspective that
maintains that Gods plan is conditional or contingent on various human and historical factors
and might change due to the specific human reactions or responses to the factors that would
influence their decisions, but that is not the case. States Pratt:
These observations raise a crucial question: If human responses could effect the way Yahweh directed
history after a prediction, how did prophets or their listeners have any secure expectations for the future?
Were they not cast into a sea of utter uncertainty?
The prophets themselves point in a helpful direction. As we will see, they did not believe Yahweh was
free to take history in any direction. On the contrary, they looked to past revelation to understand
the parameters to which Yahweh had bound himself. To be more specific, the prophets looked to
Yahwehs covenants to guide their expectations of what the future held [emphasis added].
It has been well established that Old Testament prophets saw themselves operating within the structures of
Yahwehs covenants.43 They were emissaries of God, the great Suzerain mediating covenant sanctions
between Yahweh and his people. The prophetic corpus explicitly mentions the covenant with Noah (Isa
54:9), Abraham (e.g. Isa 41:8; 51:2 Jer 33:26 Mic 7:20), Moses (e.g. Isa 63:11,12; Dan 9:11,13; Mic 6:4;
Mal 4:4) and David (e.g. Isa 9:7; Jer 30:9; Hos 3:5 et al). No doubt, the Mosaic and Davidic covenants
appear more frequently than others in the prophets writings. The laws of Sinai formed the basis for their
moral evaluations. The pervasive curses and blessings announced by the prophets corresponded to the
Mosaic covenant. Even the threat of exile and the hope of restoration to the land stemmed from the Mosaic
covenant.44 Moreover, the intense prophetic concern with Jerusalem and its throne shows their dependence
on the Davidic covenant.
To understand how Yahwehs covenants provided certain expectations for the prophets and their listeners,
we need merely to recall that the language and rituals of covenants portray these events as divine oaths. It is
well-known that the cutting rituals indicated explicitly in several passages (e.g. Gen 15:7-21; 17:9-14; Jer
34:18-19) as well as the common expression to cut a covenant (krt bryt) depict covenant making events
as rites of swearing.45 Associated terms such as lh and `dwt suggest similar concepts.46 As Kline put it,
Both in the Bible and in extra-biblical documents concerned with covenant arrangements the swearing of
the oath is frequently found in parallelistic explication of the idea of entering into a covenant relationship,
or as a synonym for it. 47
Divine covenants were not declarations subject to revision. They were divine oaths whose invariance
reflected the immutable character of God himself [emphasis added].
All of this is to say that whenever prophets offered predictions they did so with the firm conviction
that Yahweh would keep his covenants with Israel. It was unthinkable that he would violate the
structures of blessing and curses given through these solemn oaths. Yahweh would never react to
historical contingencies in ways that transgressed his covenants [emphasis added].48
This conviction provided Old Testament prophets and their listeners with a large set of general
expectations. Yahweh had sworn himself to accomplish certain things in history. For instance, in Noahs
day Yahweh promised cosmic stability until the end the world (Gen 8:22- 9:17). Isaiah acknowledged the
permanence of that expectation (Isa 54:9). God promised Abraham that his descendants would possess the
land of Canaan (e.g. Gen 15:18-21). This conviction remained strong in the prophetic word, even in the
face of temporary exile (e.g. Amos 9:15). Yahweh revealed laws to Moses that regulated daily life and the
service of the cult. The prophets affirmed these structures (e.g. Amos 2:4). God promised David that his
dynasty would be permanent and victorious over all nations (Ps 89:4 [5], 25 [26]). The prophetic word held
relentlessly to these promises as well (Amos 9:15-21). The list of certainties derived from Old Testament
covenants is enormous.
The covenantal parameters surrounding Yahweh and his people provided a basis for many expectations, but
they did not settle every question. They set limits, but much latitude existed within these boundaries. Which
curses would Yahweh carry out? What blessings would he bestow? When? Prophetic predictions drew
attention to these matters. As emissaries of the great Suzerain, the prophets announced how Yahweh
intended to implement covenant sanctions. Special revelation gave prophets insight into how the principles
of covenants applied to the present and future.7
Contingencies inside Gods Fixed Plan

The answers to the questions posed in the first paragraph, states Pratt, can be found in the
specific formats the predictions about the future took and the human expectations to the
prophetic messages received from God. The Evangelical theologian returns to the divine
predictions that he had separated into (1) predictions qualified by conditions, (2) predictions
qualified by assurances, and (3) predictions without qualifications8 in order to explain the
conditionalist matter:
As we have seen, however, prophetic predictions based on covenant principles took several formats. How
did these variations in prophetic speech bear on expectations for the future? It will help to explore this
matter in terms of the three major types of predictions we have already discussed.
First, predictions qualified by conditions specified some courses of action for Yahweh. These prophecies
gave some definition to the manner in which God planned to implement covenantal oaths. For example,
Yahweh voluntarily limited his options when he said to Judah,
If you are ready and obey, you will eat the best produce of the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be
eaten by the sword (Isa 1:19-20).49
These words indicated that Yahweh was no longer overlooking Judahs disobedience. A moment of
decision had come. At the same time, however, much latitude for God remained. It was he who determined
if conditions were met. What precisely constituted obedience and rebellion? Only Yahweh knew.
Moreover, only he determined the precise nature of his responses. What kind of produce would they eat
upon repentance? How much? What enemy would attack? When would judgment come? How long? The
prophecy did not specify. In this sense, conditional predictions narrowed the latitude with which
Yahweh might deal with his people, but they did not remove all leeway [emphasis added].
Second, a similar assessment holds for predictions qualified by assurances. Once again, the manner in
which Yahweh might relate to his people was somewhat restricted. When Amos announced, For three sins
of Judah, // Even for four, I will not turn back (Am 2:4), Yahweh committed himself to a course of action
against Judah. Moreover, predictions qualified by divine oaths explicitly raised expectations for the
prophecy to the level of covenantal certainties. For instance, Ezekiels announcement that utter destruction
would come to Jerusalem (e.g. Ezk 5:11) was as sure to come about as Yahwehs oath to sustain the
Davidic dynasty (Ps 110:4). The language of solemn oaths had the effect of equating this class of
predictions with the inviolable covenants. Nevertheless, latitude remained even here. When? How? By
whom? How long? These more specific questions remained unanswered for the prophets and their
audiences [emphasis added].
Third, we may speak of expectations related to predictions without qualifications in at least two ways. On
the one hand, Moses criterion for true prophets in Deuteronomy 18:22 assured that unqualified
announcements from Yahweh would take place in the absence of a significant intervening historical
contingency. If recipients of an oracle of judgment did not repent, they could be confident that the
judgment would come. If recipients of an oracle of blessing did not turn away from Yahweh, the
blessing would be realized [emphasis added].
On the other hand, however, we must also ask what expectations were appropriate when intervening
historical contingencies took place. Could the recipients be confident of a particular outcome? With regard
to oracles of judgment several passages make it clear that no specific expectations came to those who
repented and sought Yahwehs favor. For instance, when Jonah announced that Nineveh would be
destroyed in forty days (Jonah 3:4), the king of Nineveh called for repentance and fasting (Jonah 3:7-9).
Nevertheless, he did not respond with full assurance that Yahweh would relent. Instead, he said, Who
knows (my ywd`)? The god may turn back (yswb) and relent (wnhm) (Jonah 3:9).
Joel predicted an army of locusts was about to destroy Judah (2:1-11). He then called for repentance (2:1213). But what was the expectation? As Joel put it, Who knows (my ywd`)? [God] may turn back (yswb)
and relent (wnhm) (Joel 2:14). Once again, the motivation for repentance was not that a human response
obligated Yahweh to relent. No one could be sure if he would turn back or not.
A similar situation also occurred after Nathan prophesied that Bathshebas first child would die (2 Sam
12:14). David prayed and fasted for the child until the prophecy was realized as stated. Why did the king
pray? David explained, I thought, `Who knows (my ywd`)? Yahweh may be merciful and permit the child
to live (2 Sam 12:22).
The similar, perhaps formulaic, character of these three responses suggests that these theological
convictions were normative in Israel. Hopeful ignorance about the future was not an unusual reaction.
Neither prophets nor their listeners could know for certain that human response would move Yahweh to
relent from a threatened judgment. As the case of David and his son illustrates, repentance and prayer did
not always result in divine favor.
Second, Daniel 9 demonstrates that expectations were no higher with unqualified predictions of blessing.
The Mosaic covenant stated plainly that rebellion in Israel would lead to exile and that repentance would
lead to restoration (see Deut 4:25-31). This basic pattern had covenantal certainty. In Jeremiah 25:11-12 the
prophet announced more specifically that the restoration of exiled Judah would take place in seventy years.
Yet, Daniel wrestled with Jeremiahs prophecy some sixty-six years later.50 He surveyed his situation and
prayed for Yahweh to fulfill Jeremiahs prediction (Dan 9:4-19).
Daniels reaction to Jeremiahs prophecy raises a question. Why did Daniel pray? Why did he not simply
wait for the seventy years to pass? Several interpreters have noted the similarity between Jeremiahs
prophecy and an inscription of Essarhadon.51 It would appear that seventy years was a standard sentence
for rebellion against a god. Lipinski speaks of the designation as a un temps de p-nitence, destin-ea
apaiser la colre du dieu.52
This symbolism pressed hard against Daniel as he looked at his situation. He realized that the exiles had not
responded to their seventy year sentence as they should have. So, Daniel fasted in sackcloth and ashes
acknowledging Israels sin before exile (9:4-12). He also conceded that even the punishment of exile (9:1112) had not brought about repentance (9:13-14). Yet we have not obeyed him, Daniel confessed (9:14).
The prophet cried for mercy because Israels continuing rebellion called into question how Jeremiahs
prophecy would play out.
Yahweh responded to Daniel through the angel Gabriel. Gabriel announced that Jeremiahs seventy years
had been extended to seventy weeks of years (sa bu`m sib`m) or seven times seventy years (Dan
9:24).53 Yahweh multiplied the time of exile seven times according to Mosaic covenantal structures. In
Leviticus 26 Yahweh warned that continuing sin would bring a successive increase of punishments for
Israel. Each time the people refused to repent, divine curses would increase seven times (seba`) (26:18,
21, 24, 28), finally culminating in the exile (Lev 26:23-45). Daniel 9 extended the principle of Leviticus 26
and increased the exile itself seven times because the people of Israel in Daniels day were in rebellion.54
From this example we may conclude that the manner in which Yahweh would interact with human
responses to unqualified predictions of blessing remained uncertain. Significant intervening historical
contingencies had taken place. So Daniel had no assurance how or whether the prediction would be
realized. He rested assured of the basic covenantal structures, but the specifics of Jeremiahs unqualified
prediction remained in question.
In summary, the original recipients of Old Testament predictions could rest assured that Yahweh
would fulfill all of his covenant promises, but no particular prophecy was completely free from the
potential influence of intervening historical contingencies. In this sense, those who heard and read
the prophets faced a future whose precise contours remained hidden. They could hope, but the
manner in which Yahweh would react to human responses remained open until the moment he acted
[emphasis added].9
Right Approach to Biblical Prophecies

Pratt summarizes his investigation into the OT and NT prophecies and their hermeneutics
with a few suggestions for the theologians and scholars whose prophetic studies have been
dominated by a desire to know the future and how events today fit within it [emphasis
added], 10 and who have been involved in ceaseless debates over this or that eschatological
scheme and how current history relates to it [emphasis added].11 The theologians, scholars,
and biblical interpreters should approach biblical prophecies in ways that accord more with
the role of intervening historical contingencies [emphasis added], 12 and view them [the
prophecies] as announcements of what might be coming [emphasis added],13 and that do not
forecast a fixed but potential future [emphasis added].14 States the theologian:
Our study of intervening historical contingencies will raise a serious question for most evangelicals. Our
interpretations of biblical prophecy have been dominated by a desire to know the future and how events
today fit within it, but our proposal challenges this approach. If all Old Testament predictions are subject to
variation, and most may be completely reversed, then what good are they? What value do they have, if they
do not tell us where we stand in relation to a fixed future?
As we have seen, with rare exception, Old Testament 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 building blocks of a futuristic scheme
into which current events fit in particular ways. To approach biblical prophecies in this manner is to misuse
them.
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. At least two principle hermeneutical concerns move to the foreground. These
interpretative issues parallel popular approaches to biblical prophecy, but they are different as well.
In the first place, prophetic predictions should still cause us to deepen our interest in the future, but with a
different emphasis. Instead of looking at biblical predictions as statements of what has to be, we must view
them as announcements of what might be coming. As we have seen, with rare exception, Old Testament
prophets did not speak of a fixed but potential future. Nevertheless, the first audiences of biblical
predictions still turned their thoughts toward futurity. The king of Nineveh feared what Yahweh threatened
to do to his city when he heard Jonahs message (Jon 3:6). Rehoboam and the officials of Judah gave
attention to the possibility of defeat when Shemiah predicted Shishaks victory (2 Chr 12:6). Similarly,
Daniel looked forward to the restoration of Israel because of Jeremiahs seventy year prophecy (Dan 9:2-3).
These recipients of predictions did not ignore Yahwehs word just because it was subject to tacit
conditions. Ignorance of precisely how or if these predictions would play out did not cast aside interest in
the future. On the contrary, hearing a threat of judgment or an offering of blessing was enough to spark
their interests in what Yahweh intended to do.
This interest in the potential future is understandable when we remember that prophetic predictions
conveyed Israels greatest fears and hopes. On the one hand, Yahweh often threatened to do horrible things
in the world. When the prophets announced death, destruction, and exile for the people of God, faithful
Israelites could hardly turn a deaf ear. Unlike our day when secular minds scoff at the possibility of divinity
intruding into history in violent anger, ancient Israelites believed such intrusions were real possibilities. For
this reason, the dreadful thought of encountering the anger of Yahweh was compelling.
On the other hand, prophetic announcements of Yahwehs blessing touched on the highest ideals and
greatest desires of faithful Israelites. The prophets announced the prospect of forgiveness, safety from
enemies, and prosperity beyond imagination. Unlike our day when hope for the human race has all but
vanished, these hopes held center stage in Israels faith. When the prophets told of the ways Yahweh
offered to bring blessings to his people, interest in the future grew.
In much the same way, contemporary readers must not allow the role of intervening contingencies to
dissuade them from contemplating their future. When careful study determines that a biblical prediction has
implications for our potential future, we should consider what might be in store for us. The dread of
judgment and the exhilaration of blessings should overwhelm us as we encounter biblical predictions of our
future. Developing an intense interest in the future is one of the chief hermeneutical interests we should
have toward biblical prophecy.
In the second place, our study of intervening historical contingencies suggests that we should also deepen
our concerned with the implications of biblical predictions for our lives today. Unlike popular approaches,
however, we should not speculate as to how current events fit within a fixed future. To begin with, the
future is certain only to God. Beyond this, our assessments of contemporary events are too inadequate to
complete such a project. Instead of looking for how actions today fit within a fixed future, we should
explore how actions today affect the future. In a word, we should be less concerned with foreknowledge of
the future and more concerned with the formation of the future.
Biblical examples we have already mentioned illustrate this hermeneutical interest. The king of Nineveh
was not content with having some idea of what might happen to his city. He also applied the prediction to
that very day by trying to direct the course of the future away from the threat of judgment (Jon 3:6-9).
Rehoboam and his officials also sought Yahwehs favor in order to avert the threatened defeat (2 Chr 12:6).
In much the same way, Daniel tried his best to insure that Jeremiahs prediction of restoration would take
place (Dan 9:3). In these and other examples, the recipients of predictions knew that historical
contingencies could affect the realizations of the prophetic word. So they responded with attempts to thwart
judgment and secure blessing. Appropriate repentance, prayer, and a redirection of lifestyle became a chief
hermeneutical concern.
In much the same way, our focus on current events in the light of biblical prophecy should entail our efforts
to form the future. The fatalism of popular approaches should be replaced by piety and activism intent on
avoiding judgment and securing blessing. If we believe that human responses to biblical predictions effect
the ways in which the future unfolds, we should make certain that our responses direct the future toward
divine blessing. Turning away from sin, offering prayers, and working for the kingdom must become our
central hermeneutical concern.
Our study of biblical prophecy opens the way for exploring a number of interesting passages. Perhaps it
provides a framework for understanding why Jesus told the apostles, some standing here will not taste
death before they see the kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1). Did intervening contingencies
delay the return of Christ? Maybe Peter was operating with a similar concept when he admitted that the
apparent delay of Christs return was due to the fact that God is patient with you, not wanting any to
perish, but to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9). Does this view explain why he then exhorted his readers,
You should be holy and godly, looking forward to the day of God and speeding its coming (2 Pet 3:12)?
Perhaps John had this outlook as he heard Jesus announce, Yes, I am coming soon, (Rev 22:20). Was this
the reason he responded, Amen. Come, Lord Jesus (Rev 22:20)?
If the proposal of this study is correct, we are not involved in an irrelevant academic debate. The way we
handle biblical predictions will greatly affect how they are fulfilled. Our failure to respond properly may
actually extend the sufferings of the church by delaying our ultimate victory. Even so, if we make proper
use of biblical predictions, they will enhance our hopes for the future and incite us to live today in ways
that will hasten the consummation of all things.15
VII. Conclusion
The factual data collected in this research document on the Bibles prophetic messages
and their functions in Gods plan for the humans brings us to the following conclusions:
Gods Eternal but Contingent Plan
1. God has an eternal plan for mankind. In His divine and infinite wisdom, omniscience, and
foreknowledge, this perfect plan will insure that the humans will be restored to the sinless
condition before the fall. Gods eternal plan will succeed despite human opposition or contrarian
influences because God is sovereign and all powerful and he controls historical events and
human destinies. In its specific details, Gods plan is contingent on human freedom and human
choice. There is no conflict between Gods plan and human choice because God uses the choices
humans make in order to advance His plan.
Prophetic Classification Incorrect
2. The traditional theological distinction between the claimed classical or general prophecies
and apocalyptic or eschatological prophecies is not based in biblical facts, but on deductive
and a priori speculative assumptions. The empirical evidence from the Bible indicates that the
assumed classical prophecies are in fact contingent covenantal threats and promises, while the
supposed apocalyptic or eschatological prophecies are also contingent divine forecasts based
on Gods omniscience, timelessness, and perfect foreknowledge, and conditional in their specific
completion details on human choice.
Contingent Classical Prophecies
3. The classical or general prophecies that the SDA theologians deem conditional are
prophetic messages that deliver divine threats and promises and that are intended to target in the
first place Israel as Gods chosen nation, but include also the Gentiles through the Abrahamic
covenant, and are contingent on the human responses to the covenantal conditions and
requirements. God does not change His mind, but his verdicts are contingent on the specific
responses that come from Israel and the Gentiles to His threats and promises. When God makes
threats and pronounces punishment verdicts, His intended purpose is to warn the humans and
cause behavioral changes that would align them with the covenantal requirements and
expectations, and when that positive change occurs God changes his punishment verdicts into
reward verdicts. The opposite also occurs. When God makes covenantal and conditional
promises to humans and passes reward verdicts on them, he expects the humans to follow the
covenantal requirements, but when the humans fail to remain within the stipulated covenantal
parameters God changes his reward verdicts into punishments verdicts.
Contingent Apocalyptic Prophecies
4. The apocalyptic or eschatological prophecies that the SDA theologians and scholars
consider unconditional are divine forecasts based on Gods omniscience, timelessness, and
foreknowledge. Because God lives outside human time, He perceives the past, present, and
future as onethe divine present. The events that God forecasts and that will occur in the future
human time have been already consummated from the Divine perspective. Such historical events
and incidents are unconditional, fixed, and unalterable, in the sense in which past events are
irreversible and irrevocable. These claimed unconditional and fixed forecasts are contingent in
their details on the human freedom and human choice, and might suffer various changes in their
fulfillments, but Gods powerful and immutable plan will succeed according to His sovereign
will and infinite wisdom because He will use the choices humans make in order to amend and
advice His eternal purpose and His perfect plan for mankind.
References
I. Introduction
1
Frank Herbert, Dune (New York: Ace Books, 1965).
Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1978).
Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment
(Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980).
4
J. Robert Spangler, (Editor), Christ and His High Priestly Ministry, Ministry, Special
Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 6.
5
Ibid.
Ibid., 29.
Ibid., 28-29.
Gerhard Pfandl, The Pre-Advent Judgment: Fact or Fiction? (part one), Ministry, December
2003, 20-22.
9
William G. Johnsson, Conditionality in Biblical Prophecy With Particular Reference to

Apocalyptic, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 3: Selected Studies on Prophetic
Interpretation. Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1986), 278.
10
John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,
second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Spectator.
11
12
Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment
(Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), 178.
13
Ibid., 179-180.
14

15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985),
274-275.
19

20
274.
21
Ibid.
22

23
Ibid., 278.
24
Ibid.
25
346.
26
Ibid., 355.
27

28
Ibid.
II. Gods Plan for the Sinful Mankind

1
345.
2
Ibid., 363.
Ibid., 347-349.
Ibid., 349-351.
Ibid., 351-354.
Ibid., 354.
Ibid., 354-355.
Ibid., 355.
Ibid., 356-362.
10

11
Ibid., 277-278.
III. Conditional Prophecies in the Bible

1
2
Ibid.
2003, 20.
4
5
Ibid.
2003, 20.
7
8

Association, 1986), 259-263.
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid., 259.
13
14

15
Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald Publishing Association,1978), Interpretation.
16
Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1945), pp.
31, 32. Quoted in Neufeld, Don F., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students Source Book,
(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1962.
17
Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald Publishing Association,1978), Historicism.
18
Johann Caspar von Orelli, Prophecy and the Prophetic Office, The New SchaffHerzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 9, p. 277. Copyright 1911 by Funk & Wagnalls
Company, New York. Used by permission of Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., present
publishers. Quoted in Neufeld, Don F., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students Source Book,
(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1962.
19

20
Ibid.
21
Ibid., 265-267.
22
Alden Thompson (2013, June 17). Rediscovering Lost Adventist Literature, Spectrum
Magazine Online. Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://spectrummagazine.org.
23
Raymond F. Cottrell, The Untold Story of The Bible Commentary, Spectrum Magazine,
Volume 16, Number 3, August 1985, p.42.
24
Richard M. Davidson, The Second Advent and the Fullness of Time, Ministry, June/July
2000, 42.
25

26
Ibid.
27
Raymond F. Cottrell, The Untold Story of The Bible Commentary, Spectrum Magazine,
Volume 16, Number 3, August 1985, p.50.
28
Raymond F. Cottrell, The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy, in Nichol, Francis D.,
Editor, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary volume 4, (Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 25.
29
Le Roy Edwin Froom, (History of the Interpretation of Daniel, in Nichol, Francis D., Editor,
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary volume 4, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1978), 39-78.
30
Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 25.
31

32
Kenneth H. Strand, Apocalyptic Prophecy: A Brief Introduction to Its Nature and

Interpretation (With Special Attention to Daniel and Revelation) (1980) quoted in William G.
Johnsson, Conditionality in Biblical Prophecy With Particular Reference to Apocalyptic,
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series volume 3: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation.
Editor Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1986),
269.
33

34
Ibid., 272.
35
Ibid., 273.
36
Ibid., 272.
37
Ibid., 275.
38
Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 32-33.
39

Association, 1986), 270-271.
40
Ibid., 272.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid., 273.
43

44
Ibid., 282.
45
Ibid., 269.
46
Ibid., 272-273.
47
Ibid., 273.
48
Larry D. Pettegrew, The New Covenant. TMSJ 10/2 (Fall 1999), 260.
49
W. Edward Glenny, Gentiles and the People of God: A Study of Apostolic Hermeneutics and
Theology in Acts 15, Dispensational Study Group, National ETS Meeting, November 2006, 7-8.
50
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Davidic Promise And The Inclusion of the Gentiles (Amos 9:9-15
and Acts 15:13-18): A Test Passage For Theological Systems, The Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society, Volume 20:2, June 1977, 97.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid., 109-110.
53
Ibid., 273.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid., 270.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid., 273-275.
59
Ibid., 274.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid., 275.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid., 273-275.
64
Ibid., 274.
65
Ibid., 275.
66
Ibid., 274.
67
Ibid., 286.
68
Ibid., 275.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid., 278.
71
Ibid., 276.
72
Ibid.
73
274.
74
Ibid., 275.
75

76
Ibid., 278.
77
Ibid., 263.
78
Tim Crosby, Conditionalism: A Cornerstone of Adventist Doctrine, Ministry, August 1986,

16-17.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid., 17.
81
Ibid.
IV. Unconditional Prophecies in the Bible

1

2
Ibid., 278.
Ibid.
2003, 20-23.
5
Ibid., 20-22.

Association, 1986), 259-287.
7
Ibid., 276.
Ibid., 272-276.
2003, 20-22.
10
Ibid., 22.
11
Ibid.
12
Eduard C. Hanganu (2015, April 5). Adventist Historicism Reexamined And Critiqued.
Academia.edu. http://www.academia.edu/.
13
Eduard C. Hanganu (2013, December 18). The Year-Day Principle Reexamined.

14

15
Ibid., 280.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., 277.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
22

23
Ibid.
24
Ibid., 277.
25
Ruqaiya Hasan, The Structure of a Text, chapter 4, pp. 52-69 in M.A.K Halliday and
Ruqaiya Hasan, Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
26

27
2003, 20-22.
28

Association, 1986), 278-280.
29
Ibid., 278.
30
31

32
Ibid., 279.
33
Ibid., 278.
34
Ibid., 279.
35
Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, June 4). Daniel 9 Is Not an Appendix to Daniel 8. Academia.edu.
http://www.academia.edu/.
36
Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, June 11). The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel
9:23. Academia.edu. http://www.academia.edu/.
37
Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, July 21). The Meaning of Chathak in Daniel 9:24. Academia.edu.
http://www.academia.edu/.
38
Eduard C. Hanganu (2013, December 18). The Year-Day Principle Reexamined.

39
Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, March 12). Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined.
40
Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, December 19). Anaphora Resolution in a Biblical Passage.

41
42

Association, 1986), 280-281.
43
Ibid., 280.
42
Ibid., 280-281.
45
Ibid., 277.
46
Ibid., 280.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid., 281.
49
2003, 20.
50

51
2003, 20.
52

53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid., 278.
59
Ibid., 281-282.
60
Ibid., 282.
61
Ibid.
62
Richard M. Davidson, The Second Advent and the Fullness of Time, Ministry, June/July
2000, 42.
63

64
Ibid., 278.
65
Ibid., 282-285.
66
345-363.
67

68
Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 226-278.
69
274-275.
70

Association, 1986), 286-287.
71
Ibid., 259-287.
V. Prophecies and Their Contingencies

1
Robert B. Chisholm, When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic, Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), 53/3, September 2010, 561.
2
Ibid.
Richard L. Pratt, Jr., Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions: An Inaugural Address
Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, 23 November 1993, 1.
4
Robert B. Chisholm, When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic, Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), 53/3, September 2010, 561-563.
Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, 23 November 1993, 1-3.
6
Ibid., 3-5.
Ibid., 5.
Ibid.
Ibid., 6.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid., 6-8.
13
Ibid., 9-11.
14
Ibid., 11-15.
VI. Conditionalism Limitation Has No Basis

1
2003, 20-22.
2

3
Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, 23 November 1993, 13.
4
Ibid., 15-16.
353.
6
Ibid., 363.
Presented to the Faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary, 23 November 1993, 16-18.
Ibid., 18.
Ibid., 18-22.
10
Ibid., 22.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid., 22-24.

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts Basic Draft

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts Basic Draft

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 1

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 2

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 3

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 4

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 5

Claimed Unconditionalism in the NT ............................................................................ 54

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 6

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 7

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 8

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 9

Conditional vs. Unconditional Dispute

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 10

Logical Break in the Two Paragraphs

On the other hand they regard the grand prophecies

Johnssons perspective that a principle of conditionality operated in that kind of Bible

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 11

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 12

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 13

II. Gods Plan for the Sinful Mankind

The Divine Plan in the Old Testament

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 14

The Divine Plan in the New Testament

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 15

The Divine Plan and Its Nine Features

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 16

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 17

Divine Preordination or Human Choice

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 18

The Calvinistic Position

The Arminian Position

The Intermediate Position

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 19

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 20

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 21

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 22

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 23

III. Conditional Prophecies in the Bible

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 24

Uninformed and Misdirected Criticism

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 25

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 26

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 27

Poor Research on Bible Conditionals

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 28

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 29

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 30

Stern Threats and Generous Promises

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 31

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 32

The Gentiles and the Divine Covenant

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 33

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 34

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 35

Predictions57 section must therefore also be understood and interpreted as condition-based

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 36

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 37

Prophetic Messages and Divine Present

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 38

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 39

Conditions and the Prophetic Failures

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 40

Divine Forecasts and Prophetic Verdicts 41