Matthew's Fabricated Messianic Prophecies — Eight Old Testament Texts Ripped Out of Context and Misattributed to Jesus
Overview
The author of the Gospel called “Matthew” constructed a theological argument by weaving Old Testament quotations into his narrative and claiming they were fulfilled by Jesus. A consistent pattern emerges across every one of these citations: when the reader returns to the original Old Testament passage in its context, the text is found to be speaking about an entirely different person, a completely different historical event, and a completely different time period. None of the eight cases examined here has any meaningful connection to Jesus of Nazareth.
Christian commentators who have examined these texts honestly — including Anthony Fikry, Tadros Yacoub, and others cited below — repeatedly acknowledge that the Old Testament passages were written about historical events in the 8th to 6th centuries BCE. Their method of dealing with the contradiction is to claim that the text has a “double fulfillment” — first in its historical context, then in Christ. This is not textual interpretation. It is back-projection of New Testament theology onto texts that give no indication of any such dual meaning.
First Prophecy — Isaiah 7:14 and the Virgin Birth
The Claim in Matthew
Matthew cites this as a prophecy from Isaiah 7:14.
The Original Text in Context
The Problem
The text that Matthew fabricated as a Messianic prophecy has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. The context is the Syro-Ephraimite WarThe war of 735-732 BCE in which King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram invaded Judah, threatening King Ahaz on the throne of Jerusalem. Isaiah’s prophecy of Immanuel was a sign to Ahaz for this immediate crisis — not a prediction 700 years in the future. of the 8th century BCE. Whoever reviews Anthony Fikry’s interpretation of verse 14 sees that the appearance of Immanuel was prophesied to occur before the deaths of the two kings Pekah and Rezin — and before the child reaches the age of accountability, those kings were to die.
Verse 16 makes this undeniable: “For before the child shall know to reject evil and choose good, the land of whose two kings you fear shall be forsaken.” The sign was time-stamped within the lifespan of a young child living in the 8th century BCE. This eliminates Jesus entirely.
The second problem is the translation of the Hebrew word almahHebrew: עַלְמָה (almah) — young woman of marriageable age. The word appears 7 times in the Old Testament (Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Proverbs 30:18-20, etc.) and in none of these contexts does it require virginity. The word for virgin in Hebrew is betulah (בְּתוּלָה), which Isaiah uses five times elsewhere in his book (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5) but does NOT use in 7:14. as “virgin.” Isaiah chose almah, not betulah. Had Isaiah wished to speak of a virgin birth, he would have used the word he uses five other times in his own book.
The third problem is the name. Isaiah says the child shall be called Immanuel. Jesus was never called Immanuel — not by his mother, not by Joseph, not by his disciples, not in any Gospel canonical or non-canonical, not in any book of Christian history.
Second Prophecy — Hosea 11:1 and Out of Egypt
The Claim in Matthew
Matthew cites Hosea 11:1.
The Original Text in Context
The Problem
The biggest scandal is that the text fabricated in Matthew as a Messianic prophecy has absolutely no relation to Jesus. Anyone who reviews the text finds that the “son of God” here is IsraelThe people of Israel are explicitly called God’s son in Exodus 4:22: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son.’” Hosea 11:1 is a historical retrospective on the Exodus from Egypt under Moses — not a prediction of anything. — the entire people of Israel — whom God called out of Egyptian slavery during the Exodus. The verse is a past-tense historical retrospective, not a future prophecy.
This is confirmed in Exodus 4:22: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son.’”
Anthony Fikry explicitly acknowledged in his interpretation that the verse in Hosea is talking about the people of Israel. Yet he completed the interpretation by saying: “But we understand from Matthew 2:15 that this is a prophecy about the Messiah…” — providing no textual justification whatsoever. The text of Matthew is used to validate the text of Matthew. This is circular reasoning.
Third Prophecy — Jeremiah 31:15 and Rachel’s Weeping
The Claim in Matthew
Matthew cites Jeremiah 31:15.
The Original Text in Context
The Problem
The text fabricated in Matthew as a Messianic prophecy has absolutely no relation to Herod’s alleged massacre of children in Bethlehem. Anyone who examines verse 16 immediately finds a divine promise to Rachel that her children will return from the land of the enemy.
The context — confirmed by Anthony Fikry and Tadros Yacoub in their own commentaries — is the captivity of the Jews to Babylon. Ramah was the place where Nebuzaradan gathered the captives in preparation for transporting them to Babylon. Rachel is pictured weeping for her children who have gone into captivity.
Both commentators then claim, without any rational connection, that Matthew’s mention of Herod constitutes a fulfillment of this text. But note the critical difference: Jeremiah’s Rachel is told her children will return. Herod’s alleged victims do not return. The Jeremiah text is about exile and restoration, not about a massacre. There is no exegetical link between these two passages — only Matthew’s assertion that one fulfills the other.
Fourth Prophecy — He Shall Be Called a Nazarene
The Claim in Matthew
The Problem
The great scandal here is that this prophecy does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament.
There is no verse in the Hebrew Bible — not in the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings — that says the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. There is not even anything remotely close to it. Matthew himself uses the vague plural “the prophets” rather than naming a specific text, because there is no specific text to name.
This problem has puzzled Christian scholars and priests for centuries. Their books of interpretation have been at a loss to explain it. The most common attempts involve:
- A connection to the Hebrew word nezerHebrew: נֵצֶר (nezer) — branch or shoot, used in Isaiah 11:1 (“A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit”). However, the verse says nothing about Nazareth or being called a Nazarene, and this connection requires assuming an implausible wordplay that neither the text of Isaiah nor any Jewish reader of the time would have recognized as pointing to Nazareth. (branch) in Isaiah 11:1
- A connection to the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6, despite Jesus showing no characteristics of a Nazirite
Neither explanation has any textual foundation. The prophecy Matthew claims exists simply does not exist.
Fifth Prophecy — Isaiah 40:3 and the Voice in the Wilderness
The Claim in Matthew
Matthew cites Isaiah 40:3.
The Original Text in Context
The Problem
The text fabricated in Matthew as a Messianic prophecy has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or John the Baptist. This text belongs to Deutero-IsaiahMost modern scholars identify Isaiah 40-55 as the work of an anonymous prophet writing during or after the Babylonian exile (circa 550-539 BCE), known as Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah. The opening verses of chapter 40 explicitly address the end of the Babylonian captivity: “her warfare is accomplished, her iniquity is pardoned.” — the portion of Isaiah written during the Babylonian exile — and the voice is a heavenly announcement of the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon.
Tadros Yacoub Malaty confirms in his interpretation that this voice is a heavenly voice that the Prophet Isaiah heard announcing the return of the Jews who had been taken captive from Babylon. The “way of the Lord” being prepared in the wilderness is a metaphorical road being cleared through the desert between Babylon and Jerusalem for the returning exiles.
The context makes this plain in the surrounding verses: verse 2 speaks of Jerusalem’s “warfare” being “accomplished” and her “iniquity pardoned” — language describing the end of the Babylonian captivity, not the coming of a Messiah centuries later. Neither Tadros Yacoub nor Anthony Fikry can provide any rational textual connection between this announcement to Babylonian exiles and John the Baptist preaching in the Jordan Valley.
Sixth Prophecy — Psalm 91:11-12 and the Temptation
The Claim in Matthew
In Matthew 4:5-6, during the temptation of Jesus, the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12:
Matthew’s margin cites Psalm 91:11-12.
The Original Text in Context
The Problem
The Psalm text is a chant or prayer attributed to David — a prayer of personal trust in God by the Psalmist. All of its surrounding verses speak of God’s protection of a righteous person who trusts in Him. David is calling on his Lord. The entire Psalm is in the second person, addressed to a single individual, and nowhere does it identify this individual as the Messiah.
The application of this Psalm to Jesus requires importing external assumptions about who the Psalm refers to. The text itself contains no Messianic markers. The same protection language is used for the righteous in general throughout the Psalms (see Psalm 34:7; 37:28; 121:7).
Note also what this Psalm actually promises the protected one: long life (“With long life I will satisfy him” — Psalm 91:16), deliverance from enemies, and no evil befalling him. The Islamic Jesus — raised alive to God, saved from crucifixion, and awaiting his return — fulfills this Psalm. The Christian Jesus — who was beaten, flogged, crucified, and died young — manifestly does not.
Seventh Prophecy — Isaiah 42:1-4 and the Chosen Servant
The Claim in Matthew
Matthew cites Isaiah 42:1-4.
The Original Text in Context
Isaiah 42:1-4 is the first of four Servant SongsThe four Servant Songs of Isaiah: 42:1-7; 49:1-6; 50:4-7; 52:13-53:12. These are poems embedded within Deutero-Isaiah describing a servant of God who suffers and ultimately brings redemption. Jewish interpretation has traditionally identified the servant as the collective righteous remnant of Israel. Christian interpretation applies them to Jesus. in Deutero-Isaiah. These songs were composed during or after the Babylonian exile, not in the 8th century during Isaiah ben Amoz’s lifetime.
The basic prophecy says “Behold, my servant” — using the Hebrew word עֶ֫בֶד (‘eved), which is the same word used throughout Deutero-Isaiah for the collective nation of Israel:
God identifies His servant repeatedly as Israel throughout the same book from which Matthew quotes.
The Problem
The specific characteristics of the servant in Isaiah 42 further disqualify Jesus as the referent:
The servant will not be heard in the streets — Jesus was publicly heard preaching in the Temple courts and synagogues throughout his ministry.
The servant will bring justice to the Gentiles — Jesus explicitly stated the opposite in Matthew 15:24: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
In his name shall the Gentiles hope — this speaks of a worldwide mission that was not accomplished during Jesus’ earthly ministry.
Additionally, the prophecy as it stands in Isaiah 42 describes an Arab prophet who wages wars, destroys idols, and declares God as mighty — characteristics that apply far more naturally to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ than to Jesus. For a detailed analysis of Isaiah 42 as a prophecy of Muhammad ﷺ, see the separate KufrCleaner note on Isaiah 42.
Eighth Prophecy — Psalm 78:2 and Parables
The Claim in Matthew
Christians say this prophecy is found in Psalm 78:2.
The Original Text in Context
The Problem
The speaker of this phrase is the prophet Asaph — one of the chief musicians and composers of Psalms under David. The Psalms are the hymns, prayers, and teachings of the Prophets of Israel. The speaker in them is the Psalmist himself, addressing his congregation and speaking of the history of Israel.
Whoever reads Anthony Fikry’s interpretation understands that the speaker of this phrase is most likely the Prophet David, and that this Psalm is a review of Israel’s history for the benefit of the next generation. There are no Messianic markers in Psalm 78. The speaker is using “parable” (Hebrew: mashalHebrew: מָשָׁל (mashal) — a proverb, parable, or comparison. Used frequently in the Psalms and Proverbs to describe wisdom teaching. The word is not restricted to a future messianic figure but is used for any teacher of wisdom.) in its standard wisdom-literature sense.
What is the relationship between Asaph teaching Israel’s history through parables to the next generation and Jesus speaking in parables about the Kingdom of Heaven? Matthew asserts the connection without demonstrating it. The text provides no basis for the claim.
The Pattern — What These Eight Cases Prove
Across all eight examples, the same pattern appears:
- Matthew quotes an Old Testament text and declares “that it might be fulfilled.”
- The Old Testament text, when read in its original context, speaks of a historical event in the 6th to 8th centuries BCE — the Assyrian threat, the Babylonian exile, or the immediate political circumstances of kings like Ahaz and Hezekiah.
- Christian commentators — including those writing in Arabic such as Anthony Fikry and Tadros Yacoub — acknowledge the historical referent of the Old Testament text.
- They then add, without textual justification, that the text also applies to Jesus, using Matthew’s assertion as the evidence for Matthew’s assertion.
The consistency of this pattern across eight separate citations is not coincidental. It reveals a deliberate literary strategy: the author of Matthew constructed his portrait of Jesus by searching the Old Testament for language that could be made to sound relevant to events in Jesus’ life, regardless of what those texts actually meant in their original context.
Conclusion
The author of Matthew did not interpret these texts. He appropriated them. The method is documented, the pattern is consistent, and the conclusion is clear: the Messianic prophecy argument in Matthew is built on a systematic misreading of the Old Testament.
سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي لَمْ يَتَّخِذْ وَلَدًا وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ شَرِيكٌ فِي الْمُلْكِ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ وَلِيٌّ مِّنَ الذُّلِّ وَكَبِّرْهُ تَكْبِيرًا