Messianic Expectations: The Prophet, The Anointed, And The Text: Devarim 18:15, Mashiach (Messiah), And The Claim That Moshe (Moses) Wrote Of Yeshua (Jesus). (Part 1 of 2)
A Critical Examination of Hermeneutics, History, and Honest Reading.
(Written By Rohan Palmer).
“The text has disappeared under the interpretation.” — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.
Nietzsche’s remark is a pointed critique of what happens when the layers of commentary, tradition, and ideological interest piled on top of a text become so thick that the original text is no longer what anyone is actually engaging with. The interpreter’s framework — whether religious, philosophical, or political — quietly replaces the source itself, so that readers are really encountering the interpretation passed down to them, not the words on the page. For Nietzsche, this was especially visible in how philosophers and theologians handled ancient texts, bending them to serve systems of thought the original authors never intended. There is also a self-implicating edge to the observation: Nietzsche knew that his own work would be subject to the same fate, and indeed it was — his sister famously distorted his writings to serve nationalist ends he would have despised. The line functions simultaneously as a diagnosis of intellectual history and a warning about the will to power that lurks inside every act of interpretation.
This Essay Is The First Esaay In The Messianic Expectation Series.
I. Introduction: A Question of Method Before a Question of Meaning.
When we approach Devarim (Deuteronomy) 18:15 and its role in the debate over whether Yeshua of Nazareth is the promised redeemer of Israel, we are not merely arguing about one verse. We are arguing about how to read. Every conclusion about this passage — whether it refers to a succession of Israelite prophets, a singular eschatological figure, or a specific historical person — flows from prior methodological commitments about what kind of text the Torah is, for whom it was written, and how its meaning should be determined.
This essay takes those commitments seriously. It examines the plain sense of Devarim 18:15 within its immediate literary and historical context; traces the development of the concept of mashiach (Messiah/Anointed one) and how it relates — or fails to relate — to the figure described in that passage; and then turns to Yeshua’s own claims in Yochanan (John) 5:39–47 and Luke 24:27 that Moshe (Moses) “wrote about him” and that the scriptures “testify” of him. The essay does not adjudicate the theological question of Yeshua’s (Jesus) identity. It does insist that intellectual honesty requires distinguishing between what the texts actually say and what later interpreters — Christian, Jewish, and otherwise — have read into them.
II. The Plain Sense of Devarim 18:15: An Institutional Provision.
Moshe’s (Moses’s) speech in Devarim (Deuteronomy) 18:15 must be read in its literary context. Chapters 16 through 18 of Devarim constitute a coherent governance section describing four foundational institutions for Israel’s life in the land: judges and courts (16:18–17:13), the king (17:14–20), the Levitical priesthood (18:1–8), and the prophet (18:9–22). Each institution answers a question about how Israel will be governed and guided once Moshe (Moses) is gone. The prophet-passage addresses one specific crisis, with Moshe (Moses) dead, how will God communicate with the people?
The Hebrew of 18:15 reads: “A prophet from your midst, from your brothers, like me, the LORD your God will raise up for you.” Three features of this text are immediately relevant.
First, the word used is navi — prophet. The word mashiach (Messiah), anointed one, is entirely absent. This is not a trivial observation; it means that any connection between this passage and the developed concept of a singular messianic redeemer requires an interpretive bridge the text itself does not supply.
Second, the noun “prophet” (navi) in this context functions almost certainly as a collective singular — a standard Hebrew grammatical device, just as the singular “king” in 17:14–20 refers to the institution of kingship, not one specific future monarch. The JPS Torah Commentary by Jeffrey Tigay makes this explicit: the singular here refers to “the entire line of prophets who would succeed Moses.” The subsequent history of Israel confirms this reading: Yohoshua (Joshua), Sh’mu’el (Samuel), Netan (Nathan), Eliyahu (Elijah), Elisha, Yeshayahu (Isaiah), Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah), and (Yechezkel) Ezekiel all arose as prophets in the navi (Prophet) tradition.
Get Rpalmerusa’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Third, and perhaps most decisively, verses 20–22 provide an immediate practical test, a prophet’s authenticity is verified if his words come true. This is operational legislation for a community that needs to evaluate prophets in the near term. A test of near-term fulfillment makes no sense if the passage were primarily about an individual appearing thousands of years later. The structural weight of the passage, its grammar, and its internal logic all point in the same direction: Moshe is addressing Israel’s present and near-future need for divine guidance through a succession of authentic prophets. He is establishing an institution, not issuing a distant prediction.
III. What Mashiach Actually Means — And Doesn’t Mean.
The word mashiach derives from the root mashach, meaning “to anoint with oil.” Anointing was the physical act of consecrating someone to a sacred office — king, high priest, or occasionally prophet. The word appears 39 times in the Hebrew Bible, and in 37 of those instances it is translated not as “messiah” but as “anointed one” — a functional title applied to a wide range of people: Saul is called mashiach twelve times, David six times, the patriarchs twice, Solomon once, the high priest four times, and astonishingly, even Cyrus the Persian king once (YeshaYahu/Isaiah 45:1). In every case,mashiach designates a human being formally set apart for a specific divinely-sanctioned role.
Two critical facts follow from this.
The word mashiach does not appear in Devarim 18:15 at all. When later readers call this passage “a messianic prophecy,” they are importing a concept the text itself does not use. The bridge from navi to mashiach is not built by the Torah; it is built by subsequent interpretive tradition.
Equally important, the developed Jewish concept of HaMashiach — the anointed one expected in the end of days — is not primarily a prophetic figure. It is a royal one. The Rambam (Maimonides), in his authoritative Mishneh Torah, defines the criteria for the Mashiach with precision: he must be a king from the House of David, learned in Torah, who compels all of Israel to walk in the ways of the commandments, fights the wars of God, rebuilds the Temple, and gathers the exiles of Israel. The Rambam is explicit that the Mashiach need not perform miracles, resurrect the dead, or do anything supernatural. He is measured by political, military, and halachic success.
This is a king, not a prophet. Devarim 18:15 is about a prophet, not a king. The two concepts belong to different categories within the Hebrew Bible’s own vocabulary. Any argument that Devarim 18:15 predicts HaMashiach must therefore navigate a double category shift, from navi to mashiach, and from the prophetic office to the royal Davidic figure. Neither shift is authorized by the texts themselves.
Furthermore, modern critical scholarship and traditional Jewish authorities alike acknowledge that the fully developed concept of HaMashiach as a singular eschatological figure is not clearly present anywhere in the Torah. The eschatological concept developed during the prophetic period and intensified during the Second Temple era — particularly under the social and political pressures of foreign domination. It was not the Torah’s own explicit vocabulary but a later elaboration upon it.
IV. How the Messianic Reading of Devarim 18:15 Developed.
The history of interpretation of this passage is itself illuminating. What the scholarly literature demonstrates is that the messianic-singular reading of Devarim 18:15 was not the obvious or original reading — it was a developed reading, arising under specific historical conditions. The passage’s original purpose was institutional and reassuring: God will not leave Israel without prophetic guidance when Moshe dies. This reading is supported by the literary context, the grammar, and by early interpreters including Rashi, who understood the passage as a promise of an ongoing succession of prophets (minaviy lenavi), and the Rambam, who incorporated it into his laws of prophecy as the halakhic basis for recognizing authentic prophets — not as evidence for a singular future redeemer.
The eschatological-singular reading emerged in Second Temple Judaism, where intense expectation of divine intervention transformed many texts into prophecies about a coming individual. The Dead Sea Scrolls community, for instance, anticipated “a prophet like Moses” as a distinct eschatological figure separate from the priestly and royal messiahs. Philo of Alexandria wrote of a future prophet who “possessed by God will suddenly appear.” It was in this ferment of Second Temple messianism — not in the plain reading of Devarim itself — that the singular-eschatological interpretation was born.
Early Christians then inherited and adopted this Second Temple reading, canonizing it in the New Testament. The Gospel of John records people in Jerusalem asking whether Yeshua might be “the Prophet” (John 1:21, 6:14, 7:40) — language that presupposes the eschatological-individual reading was already circulating. Acts 3:22 and 7:37 explicitly apply Devarim 18:15 to Yeshua. But this application rests on the Second Temple interpretive development, not on what Devarim 18:15 plainly says in its own context.
The trajectory, in sum, is this: an institutional provision for Israel’s ongoing prophetic guidance → reread during Second Temple messianic ferment as a promise of a singular eschatological prophet → adopted by early Christianity as fulfilled in Yeshua. Each step involves a real interpretive choice. None of those choices is forced by the text.
Applaude to show your support. The author is very appreciative of it…
Next: The Prophet, The Anointed, And The Text: Devarim 18:15, Mashiach (Messiah), And The Claim That Moshe (Moses) Wrote Of Yeshua.
(Part 2 of 2)
