In my 2024 dissertation, Ezekiel 26 as a Case Study for Interpreting Problematic Prophecy, I argued that Ezekiel employs stereotypical language to stylize Tyre’s judgment after the pattern of YHWH’s condemnation of Israel and the nation’s oppressors. While Tyre’s destruction did not occur in literal accordance with Ezekiel’s words, Ezekiel’s prophecy should be considered fulfilled by judging Tyre after the pattern of Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem. At face value, this assertion appears to contradict Moses’s rule for evaluating prophecy in Deut 18:20–22. Stated directly, does Deut 18:22 necessitate the literal fulfillment of prophecy in all circumstances? To answer this question, I will provide an exegetical analysis of Deut 13:1–5 and 18:15–22, evidencing Moses’s emphasis on divination, rather than his creation of a stand-alone test for prophetic validation. Second, based on lexical correspondences between Ezek 13 and Jer 28, I will demonstrate that each passage is uniquely concerned with cultic intuitive prophecy. Finally, by examining the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah in Jer 28, I will differentiate between verifiable and unverifiable prophecy. In contrast to Crenshaw (1971), Carroll (1981), Christensen (2001), and Hibbard (2011), I will conclude that Jeremiah’s conflict with Hananiah does not evidence a transition in prophetic ideology but a delineation of the context in which explicit prophetic validation is appropriate. Clarifying this context provides the proper setting in which Ezekiel’s prophecy may be considered genuine, although its fulfillment does not meet the strict requirements of Deut 18.