A prophet cannot die outside of Jerusalem. Jesus died outside of Jerusalem. Either Jesus is a false prophet or he didn’t die since the Gospels say that he died outside of Jerusalem! Checkmate Christian apologist!
We all know that Muslims like to use liberal and atheist literature on the Bible to try and cause chaos and disharmony so they can try and shoehorn their historical beliefs into the Bible. Supposed errors are thrown out to put distrust in the text so they then can then insert their 7th century beliefs. That’s essentially what happens with Luke 13:33. In the above video, we see Zakir Hussain using this argument, but other apologists have used this in the past as well; Shabir Ally for example.
Here’s the verse in question:
Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.
Jesus died outside of Jerusalem as the Bible clearly states. Does that contradict what we read in Luke 13:33. If we take this verse, take a shallow reading of the text and ignore the context, sure. However, if we look at the wider context, it makes perfect sense.
Jesus talked about how he must journey on that day and a couple of other days. He wasn’t in Jerusalem when he said this, but he needed to go there. When Jesus refers to Jerusalem, is he referring to the physical city? Unless context tells us otherwise, we should assume that it’s the physical city of Jerusalem. Is there something in the context for us to assume that Jerusalem is something else besides the physical city? There definitely is in the next verse which reads:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!
Is Jerusalem referring to the physical city? I don’t think so. Think about it, does the physical city of Jerusalem kill prophets and stones those sent to her? Do the homes, public buildings, city walls, and other physical structures in Jerusalem actually kill people? Absolutely not. The only way to make sense of this verse is if Jerusalem refers to the religious authorities in Jerusalem, in other words the priests, scribes, and rabbis. Those were the religious authorities in Jerusalem. Jerusalem in verse 34 refers to the religious leaders of the city and not the physical city itself.
If we take that definition for Jerusalem and fit it into the previous verse, the supposed contradiction evaporates. Let’s read it again:
Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.
What it’s saying is that Jesus cannot die outside of the authority of the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem. This is exactly what happened. He was condemned by the Jerusalem religious authorities and died under their order. It’s irrelevant that he died outside of the walls of Jerusalem since verse 33 isn’t referring to the physical city.
Jesus was certainly killed outside of Jerusalem, and Luke 13:33 understood in the context of Luke 13:34, doesn’t contradict that one bit. He didn’t die outside of the clutches of the religious authorities of Jerusalem. In conclusion, verse 33 doesn’t contradict the narrative that Jesus died outside of the physical city of Jerusalem.