. . .

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 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. 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. Evangelicals usually argue that Moses' test should be taken as the general rule to which there are a few exceptions.

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 (h'dm) and by every beast (whbhmh), herd (hbqr), and flock (whs‘n)" (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). The writer of Kings described Josiah's 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 prophet's experience at the potter's 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.

. . .