Pensamiento judío sobre Jonás 3:1

However, this view of the Ramban's of symbolic acts as guarantors of future states is cause for wonder. For this casts uncertainty and indefinitiveness upon those forecasts not bolstered by symbolic acts as not being necessary of fulfillment; for if they were, why should some of them be reinforced by symbolic acts assuring fulfillment if they would be fulfilled in any event? The answer would seem to be that such symbolic acts accompany only those forecasts which, by their very nature, are not strongly suggestive of fulfillment — namely, forecasts of evil. These are not certain of fulfillment for, the Blessed One being long-suffering, if the nation destined for that evil repents, He removes His wrath from them, as we find in the case of Ninveh. It is for this reason that one is not confirmed as a true prophet through prophecies of evil; for these need not perforce materialize. [If, however, he accompanies them with a symbolic act, they become subject to the same considerations as prophecies of good.] And it is for this reason that such symbolic acts accompany only forecasts of evil, as in "Thus shall Bavel sink and not arise." And the forecast concerning Aram, too, though it was a forecast of good for Yoash, king of Israel, was one of evil for Aram. And the possibility existed [in the absence of a symbolic act] that Aram might repent of its evil way and the Blessed One remove His wrath from them. For this reason symbolic acts had to accompany such forecasts; but a forecast of good does not require a symbolic act to insure its fulfillment.