Does the New Testament Lie About Prophecy?

Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy

For more sources on this topic, clear on this article.

A common argument many Christians make is that Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies from the Old Testament. This sounds like a powerful case for the truth of Christianity. But when we look at some of these prophecies, we encounter problems.

For example, when Matthew was speaking of Jesus’s family leaving Egypt, he wrote, “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.'” 

• “and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” – Matthew 2:15 (NKJV)

This comes from the book of Hosea. But when we look at the original context, we realize it’s not a prophecy at all, it’s a reference to Israel’s exodus from Egypt.

• “When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. 2 As they called them, So they went from them; They sacrificed to the Baals, And burned incense to carved images.” – Hosea 11:1-2 (NKJV)

Similar issues arise when we look at other passages that New Testament authors said were fulfilled in Jesus.

• “17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 18 “A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more.” – Matt. 2:7-18 (NKJV)
• “For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.” – Luke 22:37
• “38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” – John 12:38 (NKJV)

Some have argued this is evidence the New Testament authors were being deceitful, attempting to make Jesus into Israel’s Messiah by misrepresenting various Old Testament passages.

However, as is often the case, this is a misreading of Scripture through modern lenses. It is true that many of the alleged prophecies are not really predictions about a coming Messiah but the New Testament authors were not pretending they were. Instead, they had a different understanding of what it meant to “fulfill” the Scriptures.

As we’ve mentioned, often we read in the New Testament that Christ “fulfilled the Scriptures,” and we assume this refers only to literal prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. In John 13:18, Jesus says:

“I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’”

He is quoting Psalm 41. But when we go to that Psalm, it is not a prophecy about a coming Messiah it is a lament of David. So how could Jesus fulfill this Scripture if it’s not a prophecy about Him?

We need to realize the Greek word for “fulfill” (plēroō) has a much broader meaning than our English word. It does not only refer to literal prophecies.

Paul Copan says:

“The Greek verb ‘fulfill’ (plēroō) means something much broader than this. In fact, most instances of the word ‘fulfill’ do not imply prediction. When Jesus came to fulfill ‘all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms’ (Luke 24:44, NASB; cp. Matthew 5:17), He was bringing to fruition the significance of the entire Old Testament, much of which was not predictive — Adam (Jesus being the second Adam), sacrifices, the high priesthood, Jonah’s being in the fish’s belly for 3 days, and so on. . . . when we read in Matthew, ‘This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet,’ Matthew means, ‘This was to bring to completion what was spoken by the prophet.’ Fulfillment does not exclude prediction, but it presents a much broader, richer understanding. We should think more in terms of foreshadowing or prefiguring rather than predicting.”

-Paul Copan, “Did the New Testament Writers Misquote the Old Testament?” Enrichment Journal.

When we read in Matthew, “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet,” Matthew means this was to bring to completion what was spoken by the prophet. Fulfillment does not exclude prediction, but it presents a much broader, richer understanding. We should think more in terms of foreshadowing or prefiguring rather than predicting.

This is an important point. When the New Testament authors spoke of Christ fulfilling the Scriptures, they were not necessarily trying to say there were specific prophecies about Jesus. Sometimes that was the case but more often than not, they were speaking of the Hebrew Scriptures foreshadowing or prefiguring Jesus.

Craig Blomberg notes:

Typology comes from the Greek word for pattern or type. Basically, Christians would look at something Jesus did and look for a pattern in the Old Testament to match it. Thus, they would argue Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures by reenacting important passages to show they were foreshadowing Him.

Craig Blomberg puts it like this:

“When the Gospel writers use typology, then, they are often not claiming to be interpreting the meaning of the Old Testament passages cited but rather showing how contemporary events are falling into a pattern so reminiscent of what God did in the past that they can explain the present only in terms of God’s acting again. Thus when Matthew says that Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled by the holy family’s sojourn in Egypt, he is calling attention to the striking coincidence that just as Israel had to be protected and delivered from Egypt in Moses’ day, so now God’s Messiah had to be sheltered in that foreign land until he could return safely to his home.”

Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Second Edition, pages 84–85.

R.T. France similarly says:

“…his acts in the Old Testament will present a pattern which can be seen to be repeated in the New Testament events; these may therefore be interpreted by reference to the pattern displayed in the Old Testament. New Testament typology is thus essentially the tracing of the constant principles of God’s working in history, revealing ‘a reoccurring rhythm in past history which is taken up more fully and perfectly in the Gospel events.’”

R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, page 39.

Basically, Jesus, being Israel’s Messiah, fulfilled the Scriptures by reenacting them through His life and deeds. But because He was sinless, He lived out Israel’s history perfectly.

• Israel failed God in the wilderness for 40 years but Jesus defeated Satan in the wilderness after 40 days.
• Jesus kept the Torah perfectly whereas Israel failed to do so.
  
• Jesus became a true light to the nations whereas Israel failed to do so.

He was demonstrating that He was the embodiment of Israel perfected. Thus, Old Testament passages were treated as anticipations pointing to the Messiah who would be Israel perfected. Therefore, Jesus fulfilled them in a typological sense.

R.T. France explains further:

“He refers to Old Testament institutions as types of himself and His work (the priesthood and the covenant); He sees in the experiences of Israel foreshadowings of His own; He finds the hopes of Israel fulfilled in himself and His disciples.”

R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, page 75.

The New Testament authors were aware of this and simply looked for patterns in the Old Testament to show Jesus typologically fulfilled them. He lived out the Scriptures perfectly and therefore fulfilled them. The nation of Israel never did due to their sin and so could not truly fulfill the Scriptures.

So, there is no issue here once we understand the cultural context. The New Testament authors were saying Jesus fulfilled all the Scriptures, not just the prophecies about the coming Messiah. Many of the passages they quote are not about a coming Messiah, but they were never considered a problem, because all the Scriptures needed to be fulfilled. Therefore, all the Scriptures were thought to foreshadow the coming Messiah.

John Wenham says:

“…Matthew is often concerned rather with the fulfilment of what is prefigured, than with the fulfilment of predictions. . . . The words of Hosea were in the highest sense ‘fulfilled’ in the flight to, and return of, the Saviour from Egypt.”

John Wenham, Christ and the Bible, Third Edition, page 104.

---

Luke 24:46 (Full context: Luke 24:44-48) often gets quoted by dishonest Muslim Polemicist to try to say that every instance in Luke Jesus says “it is written” Jesus is quoting something directly from the OT except here. What is Jesus quoting?

Luke 24:46 (within the wider context of Luke 24:44-48) is frequently misused by Muslim polemicists who claim that every time Jesus says “it is written” in Luke, He must be quoting a specific Old Testament verse except in this passage. They demand: “So what exactly is Jesus quoting here?” This objection is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the phrase is used in Jewish teaching.

Response: Within the broader Lukian context in Luke 18:31, we see this patter broken when referring to the written scriptures of the OT when referring to Jesus Christ. Rather he is summarizing the prophets. Therefore the argument is baased on a lie and can easily be refuted. The obvious answer is what has been stated above and the relevant information in this article. Muslims are being fallcious when making this argument and made up conditions. What criteria are muslims using that in every instance when Jesus says “it is written” does have to be a direct quotation? This is just an ad hoc rule that they make up. When they are committing the presentisim fallcacy,

Within Luke’s broader narrative, the claim collapses immediately. In Luke 18:31, Jesus refers to “everything written by the prophets about the Son of Man,” yet He is not quoting any specific Old Testament verse He is summarizing the prophetic witness as a whole. This alone breaks the alleged pattern.

Therefore, the Muslim argument rests on a false premise and is easily refuted. As demonstrated above, Jesus’ use of “it is written” does not always introduce a direct quotation; sometimes it signals a thematic summary of Scripture.

Muslim apologists impose an ad hoc, made-up rule:

“Every time Jesus says ‘it is written,’ it must be a verbatim quotation.”

But what criteria are they using? None. It is simply invented.

They are also committing the presentism fallacy reading modern expectations of citation and quotation back into 1st-century Jewish interpretive practice, which did not function according to modern standards.