A Question for my friend, Fenris

[Sojourner55]

Right, here in Acts. I'm not saying that Deuteronomy 18.15-18 doesn't apply to Jesus; it does based on those passages in Acts. But that could easily just be that the Apostles were saying that Jesus was a true prophet, not a false one. What I'm suggesting is that 'the Prophet' of John 1.21 may have been an indirect way of referring to Jeremiah.

True, but Jesus doesn't specifically reference this verse... he references 'Moses' in general. His meaning is that the Law as a whole testifies to Jesus, the same as the Prophets and the Writings.

The majority of parallels are almost incidental. The second applies to Abraham. The third applies to every prophet (since, in Hebrew the word for 'prophet' is literally 'spokesperson'). The fourth applies to any person who has bothered to pray on behalf of the nation (in particular Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah come to mind). The (second) fourth applies to Elijah and probably also Saul of Tarsus. The fifth applies to a few figures of Scripture, at least a few times in their lives (Samuel, David, Ezra). The sixth of Elijah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The seventh is, I think, intentionally worded in such a way as to make a similarity where there is none; Jesus himself physically changes (his description corresponds more to Ezekiel's and Daniel's description of angelic figures), whereas Moses simply reflected the radiance of God.

I do agree that some parallels are specifically drawn in Scripture between Jesus' life and Moses' life. But these parallels, which are found mostly in the gospel of Matthew, are not meant to say that Jesus is 'a prophet like Moses'... most people who see the parallels in Matthew's gospel stop short. What Matthew does is not to say that Jesus is like Moses, but to say that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel. The entire gospel is filled with such parallels between Jesus and Israel; the comparisons with Moses are only a piece.

Well Markedward, you can marginalize the similarities, and generalize if you want. I didn't intend each one to stand on its own. I think, taken as a whole, the evidence is compelling that God intended for Moses to be a type and foreshadow of Jesus--which is all I was pointing out. I think He intended to instill respect among the Jews for Moses as His messenger, then send the One Who was the superior fulfillment of that type. I believe the writer of Hebrews summed that up best when he said:

For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (Hebrews 3:3)

I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out, that most of the parallels I cite appear in Matthew. It's interesting to note that Matthew also presents more OT passages as being fulfilled by Jesus than Mark, Luke, and John combined. So we'll have to respectfully disagree on this point. I think very clearly, the Gospels seek to present Jesus as the prophesied Jewish Messiah, and one even more worthy of honor than the honorable and beloved Moses, who was but a foreshadow. (Sorry Fenris)

[Fenris]

Seriously....though it sounds condescending, and I don't mean it that way, your spiritual blindness is the same as that upon the Jews of the first century.

Don't take it in the wrong way, but it's very easy to accuse anyone who doesn't believe as you do of "spiritual blindness".

There never did seem to be a clear concept of the Messiah for the average Jew did it?

No, there's a clear concept. Jesus didn't meet it, which is why he was rejected.

That's why Jesus was not recognized. I mean, despite numerous references about the Messiah by the prophets, no one was certain if would be a prophet, a king, or a combination of the two.

Uh, source for this "fact"? Jews are expecting a king who is also a prophet, like king David.

The identity of the suffering One Isaiah spoke of--declared to be the arm of the Lord--has never been adequately addressed by Jews

Sure it has. I have addressed it here many times. The suffering servant is Israel, as Isaiah himself says numerous times.

--nor the amazing parallels between the 7 Jewish feasts and the events in the life of Jesus.

I'm not aware of any "amazing parallels".

But i know you can't see these things as I do--I know that. But it saddens me.

Don't be said. It's all good!

[Fenris]

4. Both interceded before God for the Jews.

This is a very interesting comparison to make, because I just don't see it at all. Moses asks God to forgive the Jews in spite of themselves- not because they've done the right thing; not even because they believe the right thing. Moses's reasoning is "what will the Egyptians say?"

Jesus only intercedes for those who believe the right thing.

So it's a not a parallel at all.

[Fenris]

Kind of an aside. We don't love our kids because they're smart, or good-looking, or well behaved, or because they do what we tell them to.

We love them because they're our kids.

[divaD]

This is a very interesting comparison to make, because I just don't see it at all. Moses asks God to forgive the Jews in spite of themselves- not because they've done the right thing; not even because they believe the right thing. Moses's reasoning is "what will the Egyptians say?"

Jesus only intercedes for those who believe the right thing.

So it's a not a parallel at all.

I don't know about that one.

Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

It looks like Jesus was interceding on their behalf's, because they obviously didn't believe the right things, as you put it, otherwise they wouldn't have crucified Jesus in the first place. I would say that Jesus was definitely interceding on their behalf's in spite of themselves, and had nothing to do with them believing the right things.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


I would say these would have been some of the same ones that Jesus interceded for while He was dying on the tree, in which He asked the Father to forgive them, because they knew not what they were doing. I don't know how you can conclude that Jesus has never interceded on anyone's behalf in spite of themselves. He does it all the time. Even to this day.

[Fenris]

I don't know about that one.

Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

It looks like Jesus was interceding on their behalf's

Those were Romans, not Jews. And this seems to be the sole case where Jesus forgives people out of ignorance.

So yeah, no parallel.

I don't know how you can conclude that Jesus has never interceded on anyone's behalf in spite of themselves. He does it all the time. Even to this day.

um, really? And here I've been told that anyone who doesn't believable goes to hell forever. Were the people who told me that mistaken?

[Fenris]

Ah, here's the quote I was looking for.

Matthew 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

This is a far cry from Moses. Exodus 32:12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.

[markedward]

There are negative consequences for breaking the Covenant in Judaism, right?

Within the Christian concept of the new Covenant, Matthew 10.33 is analogous to an active Levite priest rejecting God and telling people not to follow him. It's not supposed to be analogous to Exodus 32.12. A more appropriate Christian analogy to Exodus 32.12 would be... maybe Romans 11.28-29.

[Fenris]

There are negative consequences for breaking the Covenant in Judaism, right?

Moses doesn't seem to care about that. What's more, he convinces God to his point of view. He's a better advocate than Jesus is, in my opinion.

[rejoice44]

Ah, here's the quote I was looking for.

Matthew 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

This is a far cry from Moses. Exodus 32:12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.

The difference was that Moses never claimed to be God.

[Fenris]

The difference was that Moses never claimed to be God.

So that makes him a better advocate? More merciful?

[rejoice44]

So that makes him a better advocate? More merciful?

If it is true that He is the Son of God than wouldn't it by necessity make Him a better advocate?

[Fenris]

If it is true that He is the Son of God than wouldn't it by necessity make Him a better advocate?

He doesn't seem so from the text, no.

[divaD]

Moses doesn't seem to care about that. What's more, he convinces God to his point of view. He's a better advocate than Jesus is, in my opinion.

Coming from a Christian perspective, here is the problem tho. The Son was sent, not to do His own will, but to do the will of the Father. If Jesus had a different pov than that of the Father, and tried to change the Father's mind, He would then be doing His own will, instead of the Father's will, which would be a contradiction of Scriptures. Even tho you adamantly disagree that the NT is holy writ, the NT clearly tells us that Jesus' words were the Father's words. Not in all cases tho. For example, when Jesus prayed to the Father, I'm pretty certain those would have been His own words, but they would have been in accordance to the Father's will.

[Fenris]

The Son was sent, not to do His own will, but to do the will of the Father.

Fine. Then God would have been better to send a person instead of a god, because a person could (apparently) be a better advocate.