My Analysis of the Bible Part 2E: Prophecy

You believe the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible testify to its authority as a whole

The Bible has many prophetic books, and many of the prophecies have occurred. This speaks to the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Bible as a whole.

There are many prophecies in the Bible, some of which have come true. For instance, in Mark (believed to be written prior to 70 CE) Jesus mentions the Temple being destroyed, and it is a historical fact that the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.¹² That is pretty cool! However, if you look at other prophecies with the openness that the Bible may not have been written when it was thought to have been traditionally, some are questionably genuine. Also, you are missing a step of rationale: if the prophecies are true, how does that justify an entire collection of writings as being the “Word of God?” The prophets do not mention which books ought to be included, and given Matthew’s reference to a prophetic work that is not mentioned in the Old Testament it seems by that logic there is some divine inspiration outside the Bible.¹³ While this is certainly a fun topic to look into, it does little for an argument that the Bible is 100% God’s Word, although it could perhaps imply that God’s Word can come in written form.

To be fair, this is not something I have studied extensively, although I hear plenty about the biblical prophecies every family get-together since interpreting the Bible’s coded prophecies has become a fascinating hobby for my aunt and grandpa. But prophecy is a difficult thing to test. For instance, we see a prophetic messianic poem in Micah 5 describing the emergence of one coming out of Bethlehem to rule Israel.¹⁴ This is popularly interpreted by Christians as a reference to Jesus, who was reported to be born in Bethlehem in both Matthew and Luke. This prophecy seems straightforward: it predicted a ruler of ancient origins coming out of Bethlehem; Jesus of Nazareth seems to fit this in a spiritual sense. However, a Jew will likely not interpret it as such. Jews were expecting a messiah of a different nature, one that would restore the nation of Israel and liberate its people. We read other “prophecies” such as Psalm 2 where the begotten son of God is predicted to rule the other nations with force.¹⁵ Jesus did no such thing, but was actually of a peaceful nature. He did not liberate the Jews in a political sense. He physically destroyed no nations. Does this mean the prophecy was wrong? The typical Christian response is “no, this just has not happened yet,” referring to Jesus’ Second Coming. It has been about 2000 years after Jesus’ time, and he has still not returned. I am not suggesting Jesus will not return, but am demonstrating how unfalsifiable prophecies are. In other words, it cannot be proven wrong. If an event is prophesied to occur, it will either occur or not occur. To people believing in a prophecy, it literally cannot be wrong. Because if it does occur, it must be right; but if it does not occur that means it will happen later. There is absolutely no way to test accuracy without a distinct time frame, which, to go back to our biblical example, even Jesus did not know when the Second Coming will be.¹⁶ Therefore while there are some seemingly fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, very few of them could have been shown to be false, and therefore cannot be taken as objective evidence to support accuracy of the Bible.

12. The destroyed Temple prophesy
Many scholars agree that Mark was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (although it also important to note that many do not). The rationale behind this hypothesis is the description of the temple’s destruction in Mark is vague compared with Matthew and Luke. In Mark 13, Jesus is describing the future for his followers. In it he describes how they will be beaten in synagogues and be tried by kings and a chaotic state where families will be in conflict with one another and how the inhabitants of Judah will flee to the mountains. Surely there is implied conflict upon the region, but nothing hinting at Jerusalem being sacked or the Temple’s destruction. Jesus, however, does make a claim about the temple before he describes the coming times of distress. Mark 13.1-2:

“As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ Then Jesus asked him, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’”

This is the only specific reference to the destruction of the Temple. This would very likely be referenced more specifically given its importance to the Jewish people. In Matthew, we see Jesus giving a parable about a king whose son is to be married. The king sends slaves out to seek out the invited guests. The guests, however, have different ideas and did not take the invitation seriously, some even angry and killing the slaves. The king is therefore full of wrath, described by Matthew 22.7:

“The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.”

The king then sends his slaves out to anyone they can find to come to the banquet. This parable is a clear allusion to Christ’s movement within Judaism. The Jews, or the originally invited guests, refuse to accept God’s son, symbolized by the king’s son’s wedding. Therefore, in the parable, their city was destroyed. This seems to be a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, interpreted in this parable as God’s wrath for rejecting his son, Jesus. In Luke there is another specific reference to Jerusalem’s destruction. When Jesus approaches Jerusalem, he weeps for its fate in Luke 19.41-44:

“As he came near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, ‘If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.’”

While the detailed accounts of Matthew and Luke are suspected to be due to the authors’ knowledge of Jerusalem’s destruction (in other words, since they were both written after 70 CE), Mark’s account of Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction probably occurred before the historical events. While this does not prove that this is divinely inspired prophecy, it is possible.

13. The prophet outside the Bible
In Matthew the author uses quotations from the Hebrew Bible to demonstrate Jesus is the messiah which the Jews had been waiting on. There is one such quotation that is accredited to the prophets that is not found in the Hebrew Bible. Matthew 2.23:

“There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’”

This could mean that there was an oral tradition or an unknown text to which this is referring to. Since the other quotations in Matthew are from the prophetic texts of the Jewish Bible, an oral tradition seems unlikely. This calls into question Matthew sources, possibly implying an unknown divinely inspired text. Other scholars have searched for context, believing that Matthew is paraphrasing a prophetic work that the modern reader would not understand.

14. The messianic prophecy of Micah
Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, was supposed to have lived in “the days of Kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah” (an excerpt from Micah 1.1). These kings ruled Judah from 759-687 BCE. This is critical in understanding the context of Micah, since in 722 BCE the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) was conquered by the Assyrians. This emphasizes the need for a king of Israel to rise against its surround enemies. Micah 5.2-5 is a short poem alluding to such a king:

“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth from me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth; and he shall be the one of peace.”

Ephrathah is the name of a Judahite region, emphasizing it is the Judean Bethlehem that will produce the future king (as opposed to the Bethlehem in the north, which is located in the future region of Galilee). This is important, as it symbolizes a connection to King David, whose birthplace was also the Bethlehem of Judah. David being long dead, “origin of old” is believed to be placing this coming king in the line of David. This is why in the Gospels Jesus is referred to as the “Son of David” at times (I will also note that while this flows with Christian interpretation of the prophetic works, some Christians have believed “origin of old” to refer to Jesus being the literal Son of God). It is this reason that Matthew and Luke mention Jesus’ Bethlehem birth; it is not a mere trivial detail.

15. The messianic “prophecy” of Psalms 2
I suppose I should first explain my skeptical quotation marks. While there are many works that claim to be prophetic in the Bible, this is not one of them. Psalms 2 is about the relation of God to his king of Israel. It seems almost certain that this is about Israel’s king’s rule in the context with his close relationship with God. The problem lies in Psalm 2.7-9:

“I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Here the Psalmist is writing about an earthly king. Surely this is not about Jesus, as the Psalmist reports being named the son himself. In fact, the title “son of God” was an old title for a Jewish king. However, this came to be associated with the coming messiah, and therefore with Jesus by Christians. Jesus never broke the nations with a rod of iron, or used any means of violence. His messianic identity proved to be of a spiritual rather than physical sense. This is why so many Jews rejected Jesus: he does not fit the bill as one who restored Israel to its former Davidic glory. The idea of a Second Coming explains this seemingly prophetic error. In other words, it is believed Jesus will return as a militant king in the end of days. While this very well may be true, it cannot be tested nor shown false, since any absence of such events in history merely suggests to the believer that it has not occurred yet. Prophetic interpretation is an entertaining and often inspirational hobby for Christians, but it does little to show evidence when the authenticity of “God’s Word” as a whole is being questioned.

16. The timing of the Second Coming
In Mark 13 Jesus is describing his Second Coming and the end of days. In regards to a timeframe, Jesus says in Mark 13.32-33:

“’But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come.’”

The Matthew counterpart is in chapter 24 verse 32 (for Mark’s influence on Matthew, see note 1):

“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Since no one knows when Jesus will return, it is impossible to prove this prophetic claim false. That does not mean it is false, but it does mean there is no way to know if it is or is not a genuine prophecy; it is a matter of faith rather than reason.