Is the Prophecy of Deut. 18:15 of a Prophet Like Unto Moses Fulfilled in Joshua?

 

Here's a short chat I had with Facebook's Meta AI

AP (me): We Christians claim Deut. 18:15 is a prophecy about Jesus. While Jews often claim that it's not Jesus, but [that it is fulfilled in] Joshua. How can a Christian refute that claim? Or respond in a way that shows it couldn't be fulfilled in Joshua?

META AI: *Understanding the Debate:*

The interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:15 is a topic of debate between Christians and Jews. Christians often understand this verse as a prophecy about Jesus Christ, while Jews interpret it as referring to a prophet like Joshua or another figure from the Old Testament.

*The Verse:*

Deuteronomy 18:15 says, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—"

*Arguments for Jesus:*

Here are some points that Christians might make to argue that Deuteronomy 18:15 refers to Jesus:

1. *The Prophet Like Moses:* The verse speaks of a prophet like Moses, who will be raised up by God. Jesus is often seen as a prophet like Moses, as both figures were mediators between God and humanity. Jesus' role as a prophet, priest, and king makes him a suitable candidate for this prophecy.

2. *The Context of the Passage:* Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is part of a larger passage that discusses the role of prophets in Israel. The passage emphasizes the importance of listening to the prophet who will be raised up by God. Jesus is seen as the ultimate prophet who speaks on behalf of God, and his message is one that requires attention and obedience.

3. *The Scope of the Prophecy:* The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15 has a broader scope than just the immediate context of Joshua's time. The verse speaks of a prophet who will be raised up in the future, and Jesus' coming fulfills this prophecy in a way that Joshua's role did not.

*Refuting the Claim that it's Joshua:*

To respond to the claim that Deuteronomy 18:15 refers to Joshua, Christians might point out the following:

1. *Joshua's Limited Role:* While Joshua was a significant figure in Israel's history, his role was limited to leading the people into the Promised Land. Jesus, on the other hand, has a much broader impact, as his message and ministry extend beyond the Jewish people to all nations.

2. *The Lack of Fulfillment:* Joshua did not fulfill the prophecy in a way that would make it impossible for Jesus to be the fulfillment. The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 speaks of a prophet who will be raised up by God, and Jesus' resurrection and exaltation make him a more suitable candidate for this prophecy.

3. *The Typological Connection:* Christians might argue that there is a typological connection between Moses and Jesus, with Jesus being the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy. This connection is based on the similarities between Moses' and Jesus' roles as mediators and prophets.

*Engaging in a Respectful Dialogue:*

When discussing Deuteronomy 18:15 with Jewish friends or scholars, it's essential to approach the conversation with respect and an open mind. By listening to their perspectives and sharing your own understanding, you can engage in a fruitful dialogue that explores the complexities of biblical interpretation.

Ultimately, the debate surrounding Deuteronomy 18:15 highlights the importance of understanding the biblical context, the role of prophets in Israel, and the nature of prophecy itself. By examining the passage in its historical and literary context, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of biblical interpretation and the various perspectives that exist within the Jewish and Christian traditions.

AP: Wouldn't Deut. 34:10-12 be a good refutation that Deut. 18:15 is fulfilled in Moses given that Deut. 34:10-12 is said after verse 9. Had Joshua been the fulfillment in v. 9, then vv. 10-12 wouldn't have been said.

META AI: *Deuteronomy 34:10-12:*

Deuteronomy 34:10-12 says, "And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great deeds of terror that Moses did in the sight of all Israel."

*The Significance of Deuteronomy 34:10-12:*

You're right that Deuteronomy 34:10-12 provides a strong argument against the idea that Deuteronomy 18:15 is fulfilled in Joshua or any other prophet like him. The passage explicitly states that there has not been a prophet like Moses since his time, which suggests that Moses' role and ministry are unique.

*The Implication for Deuteronomy 18:15:*

Given the statement in Deuteronomy 34:10-12, it's reasonable to conclude that Deuteronomy 18:15 is not referring to a prophet like Joshua, but rather to a prophet like Moses who will be raised up in the future. The fact that Deuteronomy 34:10-12 emphasizes Moses' uniqueness and the lack of a similar prophet since his time suggests that the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15 is looking forward to a future figure who will be like Moses in some way.

*The Case for Jesus:*

In light of Deuteronomy 34:10-12, the case for Jesus being the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15 becomes stronger. Jesus is often seen as a prophet like Moses, and his ministry and message are similar to Moses' in many ways. The New Testament writers, such as Stephen in Acts 7 and the author of Hebrews, also draw parallels between Moses and Jesus, highlighting Jesus' role as a mediator and prophet.

*A Strong Argument:*

Your observation about Deuteronomy 34:10-12 provides a strong argument for understanding Deuteronomy 18:15 as a prophecy that looks forward to a future figure like Jesus, rather than being fulfilled in Joshua or another prophet like him. This argument is based on the biblical text itself and highlights the importance of considering the broader context when interpreting specific passages.

Did God Command Or Did the People Initiate?

 

Numbers chapter 13 says God commanded Moses to send spies to spy out the land of Canaan. While Deuteronomy 1:22 says the Israelites asked Moses to  commission sending spies to spy out the Promised Land. How can one resolve the apparent contradiction? I asked Facebook's Meta AI about the issue and it independently came to the same conclusion I did. 

It wrote:

This apparent contradiction has been debated by scholars and theologians for centuries. However, it's not necessarily a contradiction, but rather a difference in perspective or emphasis between the two accounts.

In Deuteronomy 1:22, Moses recounts the events leading up to the spies being sent, and he says that the people came to him and asked him to send spies to scout out the land. This account focuses on the people's initiative and their request to Moses.

In Numbers 13, the account focuses on God's instruction to Moses. According to this account, God tells Moses to send spies to explore the land, and Moses obeys God's command.

One way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to consider that both accounts are true, but they're describing the same event from different perspectives. It's possible that the people did come to Moses and request that he send spies, and that God then confirmed this plan through His instruction to Moses.

Another way to look at it is that Deuteronomy 1:22 is providing a more nuanced understanding of the events leading up to the spies being sent. Moses may be highlighting the people's role in initiating the request, while Numbers 13 focuses on God's sovereignty and instruction.

Ultimately, the apparent contradiction can be resolved by recognizing that both accounts are complementary, rather than contradictory. They provide a more complete understanding of the events surrounding the sending of the spies, and they highlight the complex interplay between human initiative and divine guidance.

Did Or Didn't God Reveal His Name to the Patriarchs of Israel?

 

Exodus 6:3 has been used by critics of the Bible to demonstrate a contradiction in the Bible.

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.- Exo. 6:3 ESV

The alleged contradiction is that in this passage Yahweh says He didn't reveal His name "Yahweh" to the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yet, there are passages in the book of Genesis where the patriarchs are said to have called on Yahweh. Seemingly knowing the tetragrammaton or tetragram [meaning the four letter word of God's covenant name]. For example:

To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. - Gen. 4:26 ESV

From there he [i.e. Abram] moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD.- Gen. 12:8 ESV

to the place where he had made an altar at the first. And there Abram called upon the name of the LORD.- Gen. 13:4 ESV

There are multiple ways that this can be addressed. One way is to point out that Exo. 6:3 can be translated differently. As Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser has pointed out numerous times:

With respect to the former, I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this blog (in footnotes, granted) that the consensus translation (” I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them”) is only one syntactical possibility. Another much less familiar option was pointed out by Francis Andersen years ago in his book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. On syntactical grounds, Andersen argues for a translation that is basically opposite in its meaning to the accepted view:  “I am the Lord (YHWH).  I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai. And my name is the Lord (YHWH); did I not make myself known to them?” The verse in this translation expresses a rhetorical question. At the very least, Andersen’s seminal work on sentence structure and its implications for this crucial text should be part of the conversation. [source]

Heiser cites Francis I. Andersen's book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. If this alternative translation is taken, then the apparent contradiction disappears. It's a perfectly legitimate translation grammatically speaking.

Another way to address this issue is to point out the fact that the concept of "name" in Semitic cultures wasn't limited to the literal pronunciation of a word. But it often also included the concept of a being's character, nature, attributes, personality, wonted behavior, authority, sanction, permission (etc.). Sometimes without a literal reference to the exact word and it's pronunciation. This is why the naming of places and people was very important and informative in Semitic cultures. The Bible is literally FULL of instances where names that have great significance. A famous example is how Isaac is named. He was named Isaac because his mother laughed when she heard that she would bear a son in her old age. The name "Isaac" means "laughter." Or how Abram's name was changed to Abraham because God promised him that he would become the father of many nations. Or how Jesus changed Simon's name to "Peter" because it means "rock." Examples could be multiplied.

There are many instances where "the name" of God refers to God's character and personality as mentioned above. For example:

 The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.- Prov. 18:10 ESV

And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.- Ps. 9:10 ESV

In these (and many other) passages in the Old Testament, the writer is not saying that knowledge of and proper pronunciation of God's name (Yahweh) can be used like a talisman by which one can cast spells for protection and provision (etc.). Rather, these passages are saying that God's character is such that those who pledge allegiance to Yahweh and put their trust in His faithful mercy will be protected and provided for.

If we interpret Exo. 6:3 with that concept of "name" [in the sense of character and nature] then the contradiction also vanishes. That's even if we assume the traditional translation is correct whereby the fathers/patriarchs DIDN'T know God's name. Because what it could be saying is that the patriarchs didn't know by experience the fullness of all of God's wonderful attributes. That the patriarchs may have had foretastes of it, but NOW [at the time of Exo. 6:3 and henceforth] the people of God would more fully know and experience God's gracious mercy with such fullness that by comparison it would be as if the patriarchs didn't know it. This is compatible with the patriarchs knowing the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, but not experiencing the fullness of God's nature.

Another possible way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to say that some or all of the patriarchs LITERALLY didn't know the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton and that in all places (or in many places) in Genesis where people are said to call upon the name of Yahweh, it's referring to the character of the one true most high God, rather than the literal pronunciation of Yahweh.

It should be taken into consideration that the name of Yahweh may have been lost and recovered on and off during the times of the patriarchs. So, it's not like the tetragrammaton and its pronunciation needed to be faithfully passed on from generation to generation in the holy genealogical line. It may have been lost and recovered from other peoples who may have preserved it outside of holy line. Remember for example that Melchizedek was a worshipper of the true God, El Elyon [the Most High God]. Melchizedek or some other persons may have passed on the tetragrammaton to some of the patriarchs, without the patriarchs having necessarily passed it on to the next generation.

Here's an unlikely hypothetical situation which I'll use as an illustration. The unlikeness of it is to show that even in a worse case scenario the alleged contradiction doesn't necessarily follow. Say for example that Abraham's father didn't know the tetragram, but then Abraham did know it either because Yahweh revealed it to him, or Melchizedek or some other worshipper of the true God revealed it to him. Then [to continue with this hypothetical], Abraham failed to passed on the tetragram to his son Isaac. But then Isaac's son Jacob might have rediscovered it because another worshipper of Yahweh revealed it to him. Again, this is an extreme example, since it's likely that if Abraham knew the tetragram that he would have passed it on to Isaac, and then Isaac to Jacob [etc.]. But there are probably gaps in the list of the names of the patriarchs and the tetragram may have been lost repeatedly in the godly line from Adam to Abraham.

Personally, I suspect that some or all of the patriarchs who are said to have called on Yahweh didn't literally call on the character of the true God using the tetragrammaton/tetragram. Rather, the writer(s) of Genesis and/or the inspired redactors wrote and edited it the way we have it because it was understood that the true God was being referred to and that therefore it was alright and not deceptive to say that they called on God using the tetragram. It would be analogous to saying the native Americans who lived in New York 1000 years ago experienced bitterly cold winters. Would I be lying by calling them "Americans" when the country known as "America" didn't yet exist? Would I be lying by referring to the place as "New York" when the place wouldn't be called New York for many centuries? Obviously not. It's understood that I'm "retrofitting" (so to speak) the modern names for the sake of clarity and greater understanding. Something similar could be what is going on in some of the places in Genesis where some or all of the patriarchs are said to have "called on the name of Yahweh." Especially, if it could also mean "invoking the character (i.e. name) of the God [who would eventually be known as] Yahweh [as you now do know it who are reading this sacred text]."

Given the likely gaps in the genealogical lists of the patriarchs, many probably didn't speak Hebrew or even proto-Semitic languages. In which case, it would be unlikely that they would have know the tetragram. Since the tetragrammaton is derived from the meaning of later developing Hebrew and other related Semitic languages at and (relatively) immediately prior to the time of Moses. Unless Hebrew is some kind of divine language that was revealed to humanity from the very beginning [as some, I think, mistakenly insist], then Hebrew wasn't around during Seth's lifetime, or Noah's (etc.). In which case, it doesn't make much sense that Seth would have known and invoked The Deity using the tetragram.

Rather, during the time of the Exodus God may have AT THAT TIME chosen the word "Yahweh" to be His new divine covenantal name for His newly re-constituted people to use by which to have a relationship with Him. And God did that based on the then contemporary state of the development of the various Semitic languages at that time and place. Possibly even with the influence of pagans who may have used a similar name (or names) for their gods. Something which most grant was the case with the use of the titles "el" and "elohim." No one denies that those words were used by preexisting pagans and taken up by the Israelites. Why then couldn't the use of the name "Yahweh" have been influenced by pagan names in a similar or parallel way? I'm not saying that's what did happen. Only that I don't see a problem if it did happen that way. Unbelieving secular scholars DO believe it DID happen that way. But even if it did, that's not problematic. Nothing in the Tanakh precludes that possibility. Nowhere does the Tanakh say that the divine name used by the Israelites (i.e. Yahweh) had no precursors and that it was a brand spanking new term to refer to the Supreme Being.

More could be said as to why Exodus 6:3 does not present a contradiction in the Biblical text. But what I've already written is enough to demonstrate why the alleged contradiction is ultimately baseless.

---

 UPDATE

Here's InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones' take on this question:

Did The Patriarchs Know Yahweh?
https://youtu.be/sPZnKzJqt_U