CAN WE RELY ON GOD’S PROMISES?

Certainly, but there are verses that would lead us to doubt God’s promises, for example, His promise to Nineveh of their impending destruction:

·       Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.” So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in breadth. Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:1-4)

From this, it sounds as if Nineveh was absolutely doomed to destruction in 40 days! However, we later find that this prophecy had not been fulfilled:

• When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. (Jonah 3:10)

Is this a contradiction? It seems like it is until we read about the conditional quality of some of God’s promises, as He had revealed to Jeremiah:

• “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.” (Jeremiah 18:7-8)

Some will charge that this is simply an example of Jeremiah contradicting Jonah. However, if we understand Scripture in context, we see that even Jonah understood the conditionality of God’s promise about Nineveh:

• "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.” (Jonah 4:1-2)

Jonah had so hated Nineveh that he would have been glad to deliver a message of Nineveh’s unconditional destruction. However, Jonah knew that his God is one who relents, and therefore, he fled, refusing to preach a message that might lead to Nineveh’s repentance.

Interestingly, Nineveh also understood the conditionality of God’s promise. Therefore, they repented.

Any statement has to be understood in context. This is also true of Biblical interpretation. I often say, “I love chocolate.” While this is true, it doesn’t mean that I always love chocolate. I do not love chocolate after I have already ODed on sugar. Also, I don’t love to eat it when I am nauseous.

Do these exceptions mean that my original statement was wrong? No! It just means that my statement has to be understood within the context of the entirety human experience with its many nuances. No one would call me a “liar” for saying that “I love chocolate” if I decline it when I am nauseous. Instead, they understand that it is perfectly okay to state a generalization without stating each exception to the rule.

Does this mean that all of God’s promises are conditional rather than unconditional verities? Jesus promised that He will return. Does the case of Jonah suggest that Jesus might relent on this promise because of other circumstances? Not at all!

Why not? Let’s examine God’s promise to Nineveh. Actually, it was a warning to repent. If Nineveh’s destruction was actually an unconditional prophecy, God wouldn’t have sent Jonah to warn Nineveh, and Nineveh wouldn’t have repented. In fact, God had explicitly explained as much to Jeremiah:

• “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.” (Jeremiah 18:7-8)

Perhaps another example might be helpful. King Hezekiah had been a good king. And yet, because of his success and wealth, he became proud and had distanced himself from God. Therefore, God struck him down with a fatal disease and sent the Prophet Isaiah to him:

·       Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover.” (Isaiah 38:1)

Although this sounds like a written-in-stone promise, it was actually a warning, and the king understand it as a warning and repentantly petitioned God:

·       Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, and said, “Please, O LORD, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: “Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and will defend this city. Isaiah 38:2-6 (ESV)

Despite God having said that Hezekiah would not recover, he did. Is this a contradiction? Certainly not! Hezekiah repented of his sins and God relented from what He had warned.

Although repentance might not seem explicit in the above, Hezekiah’s repentant spirit is obvious in his subsequent prayer of thanksgiving (Isaiah 38:10-20).

He too understood the “promise” of his impending death as a warning and cried out to his Lord. In contrast, Jesus’ promise of His return and of our heavenly, eternal blessedness is not warning but an ironclad promise.

Well, what if we rebel? We will not! Why not? He will not allow that to happen. Just look at His promise through Jeremiah:

·       And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. Jeremiah 32:38-41)

Just look at all the times where God says I will! Yes, there are conditions. For one thing, Israel must not turn away from their God. However, He guarantees that He will fulfill the conditions for our everlasting salvation. Praise be His glorious Name for ever and ever!

Creation, Jonah and Turning the Bible into Allegory

Is it important to know whether or not the Bible as historical? One respondent correctly pointed out, “Parts of Scripture are history--other parts are not.” So then, how can we determine the historical from the non-historical? Well, if we take the Bible seriously, we try to determine how the Bible regards these “parts.” We compare Scripture with Scripture.

This same respondent, took the position that we shouldn’t regard the Book of Jonah as historical. However, it seems obvious that Jesus took it and used it as history:

• He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:39-41)

Consequently, Jonah should not be taken as parabolic (non-historical) for several reasons:

1. Jesus doesn’t say, “According to the tale, Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish.” Instead, He speaks as if this actually happened.

2. Jesus then states “so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If the “Book of Jonah” is no more than a parable and Jesus knew this to be the case, then He is affirming, “In the same way that Jonah was fictitiously in the whale, I too will be fictitiously buried for three days. However, this could not have been His meaning.

3. Jesus warned Israel that “Nineveh will stand up at the judgment” of them. However, if all knew that Jonah was simply parabolic, they would have scorned Jesus: “As it is fiction that Nineveh repented, so too is it fiction that Nineveh ‘will stand in judgment.’”

However, there was no such retort, as appropriate as this retort would have been had Jonah been regarded as a mere allegory or parable.

It seems obvious that Jesus regarded the Book of Jonah as history. If we are followers of Jesus, then we are constrained to also be followers of His thinking and reasoning. He regarded Scripture as the undefiled Word of God (Matthew 5:16-18) and submitted to it in all regards. Quoting Deuteronomy 8, He responded to Satan:

• “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

This means that we too must live by “every word” and to understand them as Jesus did. If He regarded the first several chapters of Genesis as history – and we find that the Apostles also regarded these chapters as history – then we too are constrained to regard them as history.

Jesus based His teaching on marriage and divorce on the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2:

• "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' [Gen. 1:26-27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Jesus’ entire argument is based upon the history of God’s work, that:

• He created them,
• He made them one flesh,
• And “joined [them] together.”

If God had only figuratively (not historically) created and joined them, then we would have every right actually divorce as long as we don’t figuratively divorce. Therefore, one who is contemplating divorce could reason that, “I’ll divorce my wife, but I’ll remain married to her figuratively, in my heart.” Of course, this is absurd, but this is because a non-historical understanding of Jesus’ words is also absurd. Instead, Jesus’ clear intent was to demonstrate that divorce is wrong and that the Pharisees were wrong for justifying divorce.

Jesus built His case on the common understanding that Genesis is history. If Genesis hadn’t been widely regarded as history, the Pharisees could easily have retorted, “Well, God didn’t actually join them together, so we are not prohibited from actually divorcing our wives!” in which case, Jesus’ argument would have completely collapsed.

This is not to deny that Genesis 1 and 2 are difficult to interpret. However, if we start with the conclusion that these chapters are not history – and also that the New Testament’s interpretation of them shouldn’t guide our interpretation (Scripture interpreting Scripture) - then we consequently reject our most important interpretive guidelines and constraints. Operating with this “freedom,” the door is opened to just about any interpretation we’d like to paste on Genesis.

Perhaps the “God” of Genesis is a blind, impersonal force – gravity, according to Stephen Hawking? Perhaps instead, he is the universal consciousness – Eastern monism? Or perhaps he’s naturalism anthropomorphized. If we refuse to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, anything is possible, and if any interpretation is possible, we are left in utter confusion and our faith is for naught.