Claim. The Bible contains two contrasting kinds of prophecies about the Messiah — one foretelling glorious reception and an everlasting kingdom (Isa 9:6-7, Luke 1:31-33), the other foretelling suffering and death (Isa 53) — because providence must account for the contingency of human responsibility: God prepared a prophecy for fulfillment and a prophecy for failure.
Elaboration. Per 1.5. Two Kinds of Prophecies Concerning the Cross: “Sending the Messiah is God’s portion of responsibility. However, belief in the Messiah is the human portion of responsibility… To cope with the contingency of human responsibility, God gave two kinds of prophecies.” When the Jewish people disbelieved, only the suffering-prophecies were fulfilled; the glory-prophecies “were left unfulfilled until the Second Coming of Christ.”
DP cites OT precedents for the same conditional structure: Adam could obey or eat; the Israelites could obey Moses or perish in the wilderness (and did). Prophecy is read not as deterministic foreknowledge but as God preparing for both outcomes of human-portion choice.
This is a load-bearing epistemological-hermeneutical move. It dissolves the apparent unity of “messianic prophecy” by introducing a divine-portion / human-portion split into the Bible’s predictive grammar. It also functions apologetically: any time history failed a glory-prophecy, the failure can be attributed to human disbelief without compromising God’s foreknowledge.
The principled-vs-ad-hoc question (does this hermeneutic generalize to all unfulfilled prophecy, or only invoked when needed?) is left to threading.
See also. dp-cross-was-not-gods-primary-plan, dp-popular-acclaim-conditional-on-fulfilled-responsibility, dp-second-advent-required-to-complete-physical-salvation