Reflections of a Biblical Literalist on Unfulfilled Prophecy

I came upon a very well-written post via fides quarens intelllectum. Avery Archer is a fine thinker. He takes aim at those he qualifies as "biblical literalists" and "biblical fundamentalists." 

On the basis of Deut 18:22 and Jer 28:9, the gist of which is “If a prophet makes a prediction that does not come true, then that prophet is not sent by God,” Avery concludes that Jesus was not sent by God, because Jesus predicted that “the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and reward each person according to what he has done. Amen I tell you, there are those standing here who will not taste death until they have seen the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom” (Matt 16:27- 28), but that isn't what happened. I concur: the prediction went unfulfilled.

A couple of comments.

If a biblical literalist is someone who "interprets the Bible at face value unless otherwise clearly indicated" (Avery's definition), then I am one. It is true, of course, that the epithet "literalist" is often hurled at someone because they take a text too literally, for example, by drawing unwarranted conclusions from it. In my view, that is what Avery does.

Most interpreters of an authoritative text, the Bible, the Constitution, the rules of the highway, are not, thank goodness, strict-to-the-second-power constructionists. Unfortunately, my local policeman is, which is why I got a $217.00 ticket for rolling through a stop sign the other day. Mitigating circumstances, like the fact that no other car was anywhere in sight (not even his; he was hidden behind a building), didn’t cut it with him. I made his day. 

That’s how Avery comes across to me, a bit like my local policeman. The terms he uses for someone who takes a text at face value,  literalist and fundamentalist, are pretty loaded. He might want to find more neutral terms to describe standard interpretive practices. 

In any case, Avery’s strict-to-the-second-power construction of the sense of Deuteronomy 18:22, while not surprising from a logician like him, is a form of interpretation virtually unattested in biblical tradition. That’s why the expectation of Jesus and his first disciples that God would bring about the restitutio of the kingdom of Israel (that’s what the “Son of Man” prophecy in Daniel is primarily about, which Jesus cites in the Matthew passage) in their lifetimes, when it did not occur, was not a deal-breaker, despite the offense to Deut 18:22. Recalibration might be sufficient. As if Jesus had come to know something he did not know before being resurrected, the terms of the prior prophecy are modified in the reported final words of Jesus before his ascension (Acts 1:6-8). Rather than it will happen in your lifetimes, now it is not for you to know the times and seasons. Don't tell Hal Lindsey, but that changes everything.

This approach to prophecy has precedent in the Hebrew Bible. Let me illustrate. In Ezek 29:17-21, the selfsame prophet alludes to an unfulfilled prophecy he pronounced years before (Ezek 26), and proceeds to make a new, compensatory prophecy. Interestingly enough, it also never came to pass. Does that mean that Ezekiel is not among the prophets? Well, he is, and that's because it was understood that prophecy is first of all about what should happen, not necessarily about what will happen. 

Examples like this abound. My favorite is one that involves two prophets, not one: Micah and Jeremiah. In the 8^th cent. bce, Micah had predicted that Jerusalem would “be plowed like a field,” totally destroyed (Mic 3:12). It didn’t happen, even if it should have. The words of Micah were treasured nonetheless, and more than a century later, people cite them in Jer's defense, when he’s about to be done in for prophesying the same thing (Jer 26:18).

Jeremiah's prophecy of doom over Jerusalem and Judah did come true, in anticipation of which Jer lets God have it (Jer 8:18-22; 12:1-4; etc.). From Jer’s point of view, God should refrain from what he was planning to do. But He doesn’t. Jer goes on to prophesy dire things for Babylon, the instrument of the destruction of Judah (Jer 50-51). Things don’t work out the way Jer predicts, but Jer is still among the prophets.

The fact is, a double-standard is at work. One standard is applied by Jeremiah to his prophetic opponents (in Jeremiah 28:9, which Avery cites), another by tradition to Jeremiah himself. 

The double-standard, in my view, is apropos. A prophet was considered a prophet if he did not conceal bad news, no matter how unwanted, received from God. If he also predicted things everyone hoped would happen, like the destruction of the people's enemies at a future point in time, or the advent of new geopolitical order with Israel on top rather than on the bottom, the fact did not disqualify him from prophethood if the predictions went unfulfilled. The double-standard goes a long way towards explaining why the Jewish and Christian faiths have been vital forces throughout history.

A space was created for the critique of power. We tend to take it for granted that the press can criticize those in power. From a Jewish and Christian point of view, it is their responsibility to do so. If the prophetic witness is taken seriously, It is a right and duty of everyone to speak the truth to power.

A law like the one in Deuteronomy, on the other hand, doesn’t take one very far. Laws usually don’t, unless you’re a policeman. Boy did I get nailed.

For further discussion, see Lena Sofia-Tiemeyer, “Prophecy as a Way of Cancelling Prophecy - The Strategic Uses of Foreknowledge,” ZAW 117 (2005) 329-50. 

Comments

[Mike Heiser]

This was an excellent post, John. Bob Chisholm, an OT prof at Dallas Seminary, read a paper that dealt with similar themes two years ago at an ETS regional. It was also excellent. Thanks for these thoughts on a little known problem/phenomenon.

[ElShaddai Edwards]

Thank you for the very interesting article. I've linked to it from my blog (He is Sufficient, http://www.heissufficient.net) where I recently overviewed some of the strengths and weaknesses of preterism.