Jeremiah 18:7-10.
The nineteen passages discussed above share a similar, positive view of
soothsaying. They all consider it an important, if not the most important
category of real prophecy. This notion is unequivocally opposed by 18:7-10, in
which, just as in 28:8-9, the author has formulated a theoretical principle.
Yet, while 28:8-9 advocates the (limited) rule of fulfillment, related to the
soothsaying aspect of prophecy, 18:7-10 denies it entirely. Basic to these
verses is the notion that God's plans are always contingent, determined by
human behavior. Compared to the message of the book of Jonah, the rule here is
more definitive and systematically congruous. The book of Jonah does not
express explicit agreement even with the limited rule of fulfillment, that is,
the notion that the conditionality of God's proclamations refers only to one
aspect: human repentance followed by divine forgiveness. However, since people
not only repent but also regress from their good behavior and "do evil ...
not listening to my voice" (18:10), God may also "repent of the
good." The "contingency formula" should also take into account
this element. In this sense–the clear and unequivocal denial of a necessary
linkage between true prophecy and its fulfillment–Jer 18:7-10 is unique in the
book of Jeremiah. A comparison with the previously discussed nineteen
references might suggest that this section was written as a polemic against
them, or their "subversive interpretation." This is best attested by
the way vv. 7 and 9 paraphrase, nearly quote, 1:10. The formula לנתוש לנתוץ ולהאביד
ולהרוס לבנות ולנטוע is breached by the contingency formula (vv. 8, 10) and thus
reinterpreted not as an absolute message but as an open option. (Yair Hoffman, “Prophecy and Soothsaying,”
in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg,
ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay [Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1997], 236-37)
