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.

Isa. 7:14, Matt. 1:23 and the Virgin Birth

The writing of this blogpost was inspired by Christian apologist Steve Hays' blogpost The virgin birth prophecy which is a response to atheist skeptic Richard Carrier's article The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (2003). I recommend reading both articles.

All bolding below has been added by me, AP.

Many skeptics are quick to charge the writer of Matthew (in Matt. 1:23) of mistranslating, abusing and twisting Isa. 7:14 to fit Christian theology. Usually, they do so by making claims and argument even knowledgeable and scholarly atheists would regard as erroneous and fallacious. The fact is that the meaning of the words "almah," bethulah," (in Hebrew) and "parthenos" (in Greek) do not have a single definite meaning. They must be interpreted in light of context. Even the skeptic Richard Carrier states, "The Greek word parthenos carries a basic meaning of 'girl', hence it denotes 'virgin' only by implication." Nor does Carrier deny, but rather affirms, that the Hebrew word "almah" could refer to a virgin, even though he is quick to point out that the Hebrew word "bethulah" more clearly meant virgin. Carrier also states, "It is possible the Jewish translator of Isaiah wasn't taking sides on whether 'virgin' was meant but was using a word that could mean either, and that only later did Christians take it as definitely meaning 'virgin'."

I recommend reading Carrier's full article, The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (2003). Make sure to also read the footnotes. Then immediately read Steve Hays' response The virgin birth prophecy


The Jewish Annotated New Testament is a New Testament with annotations written by non-Messianic Jewish scholars. Page 33 has an article that includes the following [entirety not quoted]

Matthew's rendering of the LXX's parthenos from Isa 7.14 ("A virgin will conceive and bear a son" [Mt 1.23]) remains a site of popular piety and scholarly debate. The Hebrew word translated by parthenos in the LXX is 'almah, which is used in the Tanakh in Isa 7.14 and six other times (Gen 24.43; Ex 2.8; Ps 68.26; Prov 30.19; and Song 1.3; 6.8) in the sense of "a young woman" but does not necessarily suggest "virgin." The Greek parthenos does not, for the LXX, necessarily connote "virgin," although that is the predominant translation. It appears in Gen 34.3 in reference to Dinah, who had just had intercourse with Shechem. The Hebrew term betulah, used more than fifty times, including several times in Isaiah, usually (but not always) carries the technical sense of "virgin." Thus for the Hebrew text of Isa 7.14, and perhaps even the Greek text, the prophet is saying, "The young woman is pregnant...." There is no reason to presume her pregnancy was miraculous.

I tried to be exact in typing the above excerpt (including italics). I put in bold what I found interesting.

Even according to these Jewish scholars (who are not believers in Jesus/Yeshua as the Messiah) NONE of the words "almah," "parthenos" or "betulah" have only one definite meaning. If that's true, then that seems to demolish the charges that 1. the LXX (translated by Jews no less) was definitely wrong in its translation of almah. 2. Matthew was wrong in latching onto "parthenos" as having the sole definite meaning of "virgin."

When the above facts are coupled with the traditional Jewish hermeneutical approach to Biblical interpretation called Pardes/PaRDeS, Matthew cannot be charged with 1. tampering with the wording of the Hebrew scriptural passage, 2. altering its prophecy, 3. twisting its meaning by a misleading translation, 4. putting an eisegetical spin on its interpretation and application to Christ's virgin birth.  Since it is not clear which of the four hermeneutical approaches of PaRDeS Matthew used to connect Isa. 7:14 with Jesus' supernatural conception and birth.

Moreover, some Christians scholars have argued that there is a dual fulfillment of Isa. 7:14. One relatively immediate during the lifetime of the original recipients of the prophecy, and secondly the final ultimate fulfillment in Christ's virgin birth. In which case, if God meant to have a dual fulfillment, then the more ambiguous word "almah" would make room for two fulfillments, rather than "bethulah" which would only allow for one fulfillment.

In a review of the NET translation of the Bible a footnote states:

9. For example, F.F. Bruce, who defends the rendering "virgin" thus:

But since the new [RSV] revisers have enlisted the aid of the Ras Shamra documents elsewhere, they might have done so here. For Isaiah’s announcement of the birth of the child Immanuel is couched in language reminiscent of the Ugaritic formula for announcing the birth of a hero. And in that formula the Ugaritic equivalents of Hebrew 'almah and bethulah appear in synonymous parallelism! There are overtones in Isaiah 7:14 which are not satisfied by the RSV rendering. The prophet’s words probably rang a bell in the minds of his hearers, just as did the reference of his contemporary Micah to “the time when she who is in travail has brought forth” (Mic. 5:3, RSV). (“A British Scholar Looks at the RSV Old Testament,” Eternity, May 1954, p. 45.)

See further the careful analysis of the word in Edward J. Young's Studies in Isaiah (1955), pp. 143-98, and his commentary, The Book of Isaiah. Vol. 1. Chapters 1-18. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), pp. 283-94. Even such a liberal scholar as Hans Wildberger must admit that "the translation of the word with παρθενος (virgin), which has caused the passage to be interpreted as the account of the virgin birth, is not impossible from the outset. Procksch (ad. loc.) offers his candid opinion: 'According to the content [sic], the Gk translation παρθενος and Vulg virgo is right on target ..., whereas Aquila, Sym, Theod distort the meaning by using νεανις'; cf. also Schulz, op. cit." (Isaiah 1-12. A Commentary, translated by Thomas H. Trapp [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991], p. 308). On a popular level, see the article "Virgin" by J.A. Motyer in The New International Dictionary of the Bible edited by J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), pp. 1051-52.

The argument against the rendering "virgin" depends upon the idea that in Hebrew only the word בתולה (bethulah) carried the sense "virgin," and so if Isaiah had wished to convey that sense he would have used that word, and not the word עלמה. But evidently בתולה does not unambiguously refer to a virgin, because in Genesis 24:16, Leviticus 21:3, and Judges 21:12 the biblical authors add to the word such phrases as "who had not known a man," which are obviously designed to make sure that the word is understood in the specific sense of "virgin." Why should we expect Isaiah to use one ambiguous word instead of another? We have enough reason to think that both בתולה and עלמה are like our old English word "maiden"— meaning "young woman" in some places or times, and "virgin" in others. There is something perverse about any analysis of the words which will not admit that probability, and which insists that only בתולה can mean "virgin." It is like saying that Shakespeare could not have meant the same thing as "virgin" when he used the words "maid" and "maiden." We know very well that he did use the Anglo-Saxon word "maiden" in that sense, although he also used the Old French word "virgin" in his plays. Ultimately, our decision regarding the appropriate rendering in Isaiah 7:14 depends upon our judgment of what word best conveys the author's meaning, and we judge that "virgin" belongs in this place.

Regarding other aspects of the interpretation of the Immanuel prophecy, see the discussions in Ernst W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament (4 vols., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1854-1858); James Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1907); and J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930).

See also the following resources:

What Do You Think About The Messiah?
This is my comprehensive blogpost in defense of the true Messiahship of Jesus.

Does the New Testament Quote the Old Testament Out of Context?

How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum

A Look at Messianic Prophecy: Four Ways the New Testament Authors Use the Hebrew Bible

The virgin birth prophecy by Steve Hays

"The Virgin Will Conceive": Typological Fulfillment in Matthew 1:18-23 by James M. Hamilton Jr.

Context And Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 by J.A. Motyer

Is Isa 7:14 prophetic? by Steve Hays

Isaiah 7:14 by Steve Hays

Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden? by Zhava Glaser 

Modern Rabbis and the Virgin Birth of Messiah

7 Supernatural Sons

Virgin Birth Prophecy Jesus and the Old Testament - Dr. Michael S. Heiser

https://youtu.be/puLgX-zp0_c

A "Pregnant Virgin"?!? Defending a Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 - The Case for Messiah

https://youtu.be/Z5aQkUPoK1U

The Jewish Life of Christ, Twenty One (21) mp3 Lectures by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Answering Your Toughest Questions with Dr. Michael Brown YouTube Episodes:
 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32


Countering the Counter-Missionaries with Dr. Michael Brown
(Over 24 hours of teaching)

Day 1 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/vV9rMFOFkgY
Day 1 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/OLT7BYpdU1o

Day 2 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/tcsK1VfAA0Y
Day 2 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/wbKAFnr0O6Q

Day 3 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/roHll6Gf3EY
Day 3 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/nt3X4SbijEo

Day 4 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/JLg4XnkitKE
Day 4 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/O_LyQI9dpI4

Day 5 part 1 & 2 http://youtu.be/Q-nMtATgETE
Day 5 part 3 & 4 http://youtu.be/7KUc9kQlb1Y

It's common for non-Messianic Jews to argue that no respected and learned rabbis ever accepted Jesus' Messiahship. However that's false. As the following two articles proves.

Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part ONE
Rabbis Who Thought For Themselves Part TWO