the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Moses (2)
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or MOSES (Heb. סשֶׁה in accordance with the derivation from משה ‘to draw,’ given in Exodus 2:10; LXX Septuagint and NT usually Μωϋσῆς [Vulgate Moyses], following the derivation adopted by Philo and Josephus from the Coptic mo ‘water’ and ushe ‘saved, occasionally, however, Μωσῆς in conformity to the Hebrew. On its declension see Blass, Grammar of NT, § 10)—For an estimate of the position occupied by Moses in the Gospels, and his relation to the Person and work of Christ, a good starting-point is afforded by the words of Hebrews 3:2-6, which may be paraphrased thus: Moses was intrusted by God with an influence which was to affect and permeate not only his own generation but the whole of the Old Dispensation; and he proved himself worthy of the trust. Christ was similarly faithful, but in two ways He far transcended Moses.—(a) Moses, for all the influence which be exercised, was yet a member, a portion, of the ‘house’ throughout which that influence extended; but Christ is God, the Builder and Maker of the house.’ (b) Moses had a delegated authority in the house; he acted under orders as a trusted servant in the early stages of man’s spiritual evolution; but his authority vanished when the Son came into possession. Moses may thus be considered under two aspects, which, however, are not entirely distinct, but blend into one another. (1) He is not so much a person as an instrument. He represented the Old Dispensation because he was the instrument through which the Law was given. (2) He is an historical personality. But, because he represented the Old Dispensation, many of his acts, and of the events of his career, and of the characteristics of his person, prove to be types—inferior and prophetic counterparts—of various factors in the Kingdom and the Person of Christ.
1. (a) It was the opinion universally held among Jews and Christians in Apostolic times, that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. (On our Lord’s acceptance of this opinion, see below).
Mark 12:26. The passage in Exodus relating God’s appearance in the bush is said to occur ‘in the book of Moses.’ And in || Luke 20:37 Moses ‘pointed out’ (ἐμήνυσεν) the truth of a resurrection of the dead in the passage about the bush, ‘when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham …’ It was God Himself who used these words (Exodus 3:6), but Moses is spoken of as the author of the passage.
Mark 12:19 || Luke 20:28. The Sadducees, in referring to the Levirate law, claim that ‘Moses wrote unto us.’ On || Matthew 22:24 see below.
John 1:45. Philip speaks of ‘him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote.’
Luke 16:29; Luke 16:31; Luke 24:27. Moses being the author of the Pentateuch, his name stands as synonymous with that which he wrote.
To these must be added the passages which speak of ‘the law of Moses’: Luke 2:22 (the offering after childbirth), Luke 24:44 (‘the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms’), John 7:23 (circumcision; cf. Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5). See also Acts 13:39; Acts 26:22; Acts 28:23, Romans 5:14; Romans 10:5, 1 Corinthians 9:9, 2 Corinthians 3:15, Hebrews 10:28.
(b) Besides this somewhat impersonal use of the name of Moses, there are passages which invest hint with a more conscious responsibility and authority in connexion with the Law.
Matthew 8:4 || Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14. The healed leper is told to offer the gift which ‘Moses enjoined.’
Matthew 19:7 || Mark 10:3 f. The Pharisees, ‘tempting’ Jesus, argue on the assumption that ‘Moses commanded’ a man to give his wife a writ of divorcement. And our Lord answers them—‘Moses allowed you to put away your wives (Mt.), he wrote you this commandment (Mk.), with a view to (προς) your hardness of heart.’ Moses is here conceived of as looking out with a prophetic eye over the ages, and seeing that all future generations of Israel would alike harden their hearts against God; and that it would therefore be advisable to permit divorce as a necessary evil under certain circumstances, in order to limit and check man’s sinful disposition. The words ‘recognize the validity of the husband’s act, but do not create the situation’ (Swete). In Mk. our Lord anticipates the appeal to Moses by saying, ‘What did Moses command you?’ Mt. misses this, putting the τι ἑνετμλατο into the mouth of the Pharisees (see Swete on the whole passage, Mark 10:1-6).
Matthew 22:24. In citing the Levirate law, the Sadducees claim that ‘Moses said’—for which the other Synoptists have the less personal ‘Moses wrote.’
Mark 7:10 Our Lord quotes the Fifth Commandment of the Decalogue, together with Exodus 21:17, with the words ‘Moses said.’ || Matthew 15:4 has ‘God said.’
Matthew 23:2. Moses, as the great teacher of the Law, used to sit (cf. Exodus 18:1 f.), and deliver ex cathedra decisions. And the recognized teachers of the nation, the scribes and Pharisees, took up the same authoritative position (ἐσὶ τῆς Μ. καθίδρας ἰκάθισαι) when they became the exponents of the traditional rules by which the old Law was ‘hedged.’ Jesus does not find fault with the position; He says, in effect, ‘as interpreters of the Law of God, show them all due reverence; as keepers of the Law of God, beware of following their example’ (see Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iii. 74a).
In the Fourth Gospel this view of Moses’ authority appears no less prominently.—
John 1:17, ‘The Law was given through Moses.’ But this very fact places him and it on a lower plane than Christ and the Gospel. Moses was merely a channel, through whom the Law—which was something separate from himself—was given; whereas ‘grace and truth came into being (ἑγένετο) through Jesus Christ,’ because He Himself was, and is, grace and truth; so that we received the fulness of grace and truth ‘because we all received of his fulness’ (see Hort, The Way, the Truth, and the Life, p. 43 f.).
John 5:45. The national adherence to the Law is the resting of the national hopes upon Moses (‘Moses on whom ye have placed your hope’). But (John 5:46 f.) this adherence on your part ought to mean a loyal acceptance of his words, even though their true meaning is at variance with national expectations. Moses’ words accuse you, for belief in his writings really involves belief in My words. ‘He wrote of me.’
There are two senses in which it may be said that Moses wrote of Christ. Christ said (Matthew 22:36-40, cf. Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18) that on the two commandments—love to God, and love to man—‘all the Law is hung, and the prophets.’ so that the true underlying meaning and motive of the whole Law was reflected in the spirit of Christ (see ‘Christ the Interpreter of Prophecy,’ by Kennett, Interpreter, Jan. 1906). But the Pentateuch contains more than the laws. A further sense in which Moses wrote of Christ is indicated in the whole of § 2 of the present article. Moses was quite unconscious that he wrote of Christ when he hung’ the Law upon love; and he was similarly unconscious of it when he related events which were afterwards to receive a spiritual fulfillment in the religion of Christ.
John 7:19; John 7:22. Our Lord shows the Jews that a strict observance of the letter of the whole Law is, in practice, impossible; and that He is therefore, from their own standpoint, entitled to heal on the Sabbath. ‘Did not Moses give you the law? and yet not one of you carries it out in actual practice (ποιεῖ τὸν νόμες). For instance—Moses has given you circumcision; but in keeping that ordinance, you do not hesitate to break the letter of another, for you circumcise on the Sabbath. There is irony in the ἵνα μὴ λυθῂ (‘that the law of Moses be not broken’) of John 7:23. But a further thought seems to be implied in the διὰ τοῦτο (‘for this cause’) with which John 7:22 opens. Not only did Moses give you a law which it is impossible to keep with rigid exactness, but he gave it to you on this very account, i.e. that you might discover by experience its weakness and unprofitableness. A parenthesis, however, is thrown in to modify the δέδωκεν. Hoses ‘has given’ you circumcision in the sense that he has authoritatively endorsed it as a binding ordinance; but it did not originate from him; it was handed down ‘from the fathers,’ i.e. from the days when Abraham circumcised himself and his sons. (Our Lord uses a similar argument with regard to the Sabbath in Matthew 12:5).
John 9:28 f. The Pharisees taunted the man who had been healed of his blindness with being a disciple of Jesus, while they were ‘Moses’ disciples.’ In their eyes Moses held a position analogous to that of Mohammed or Buddha, or any great founder of a religion. They were Moses’ disciples because they revered his writings and obeyed his commands. But Christ’s true followers, while they are His disciples, are at the same time far more, because they are partakers in His Divine life.
See also Romans 10:19 (the expression ‘Moses saith’ introducing the words of God, Deuteronomy 32:21), Hebrews 7:14.
The thought of this section finds concrete illustration in the narrative of Matthew 17:1-8 || Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36. Moses and Elijah, the two grandest figures of the OT, who both fasted forty days and nights, who were both privileged to behold a theophany on Mt. Horeb, and who were both taken from the earth in a supernatural manner, represented ‘the Law and time Prophets.’ And they appeared to Him who was the fulfilment to which both pointed, and conversed with Him (Lk.) concerning His impending departure (ἔξοδος). Among other factors in the vision which taught a lesson to the watching disciples was the vanishing of Moses and Elijah when ‘Jesus alone’ remained. ‘It helped them to see that the OT being fulfilled by Christ is done away in Christ’ (Plummer in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iv. 808a).
In all the above passages, both in (a) and (b), Moses does not appear strictly as a personality. He is not a man, possessed of individual character—of moral or spiritual attainments. He is the instrument through whom the Law was given to Israel (Acts 7:38)—the hand which wrote and the voice which spoke. And Jesus, together with the Jews of His day, thought of him as such. This fact is held by some to cut away the ground from the critical arguments which go to prove that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch as it stands, and, indeed, that the greater part of the Pentateuchal law is in its present form later than the age of Moses. The question has been very fully discussed by many writers, so that only a brief notice is needed here. If, as Hebrew scholars contend, the evidence is overwhelming that the Pentateuch and the Laws contained in it are the result of a long growth, which was not completed until a period after time return of the Jews from exile, it is impossible for us to shut our eyes to this evidence on the assumption (for it is only an assumption) that our Lord’s use of the name of Moses precludes further argument. An explanation sometimes given is that Jesus must have known the exact truth about the authorship of the Pentateuch, but that He made a concession to the ignorance of the Jews of His day. But a growing body of students rejects this as untenable, because it detracts from the complete humanity of our Lord. If, as man, He had a full knowledge of the results which modern study has reached with regard to the literary problems of time OT, He must also, as man, have known all future results which will be reached by the study of generations to come. In other words, as man He was omniscient. But this conflicts alike with our conception of complete manhood and with the explicit declaration that He ‘advanced in wisdom’ (Luke 2:52). We know that He could feel hungry and thirsty and weary, that He could be overcome with sleep, that He could manifest surprise; and on one occasion at least He spoke of` something which ‘no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only’ (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32). He was subject, therefore, to the ordinary limitations of manhood, and, as man, He acquired His knowledge by the methods which other men follow. The problem is a part of a larger one—the problem of determining to what extent, or in what sense, His Divine powers and prerogatives were in abeyance during His earthly life. Although fully and completely man, He did not cease to be God, and He did not cease to be conscious of His Divinity. ‘It is this continuous self-consciousness of the Son of God that gives the true measure of His transcendent humility’ (Gifford, The Incarnation, p. 90). We can venture the statement with respect to His knowledge, that though, as God, He never ceased to be omniscient, yet He refused to know, as man, anything which could not be learnt by human means. But when we have said that, we have only enunciated and not solved the problem. This is not the place to enter into it further. But there can be no doubt that it is along this line of thought that we must move, to justify modern criticism in denying to Moses the authorship of the Pentateuch which our Lord and His Apostles ascribed to him. See also artt. Humanity of Christ and Kenosis.
2. But because Moses was the representative of the Old Dispensation, Jesus and the NT writers thought of him as something more. He was an historical personage of such unique prominence in Israel’s history, that his whole career affords parallels to spiritual factors in the New Covenant. The history of the old Israel repeats itself in that of the new. To say this is not to affirm that the OT writers had the slightest idea that the events which they described were one day to receive a spiritual fulfilment. The mind of God alone knew it, when He guided the events and inspired the writings.
The series of Mosaic events which NT writers cite as affording points of comparison with things spiritual, form an extremely interesting study, since they cover so many of the distinctive features of the New Dispensation, and illustrate in a striking manner the essential unity of the ‘Divine Library.’
(a) 2 Corinthians 3:7-18. The centre of Christianity is the Incarnation—the dwelling of God’s glory among men in the Person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). And St. Paul argues that the ‘glory’ upon Moses’ face,* [Note: His use of the narrative is rendered easier by the LXX, which renders קרן (‘shone’) by δεδόξασται and δεδοξασμένη (Exodus 34:29 f.).] which accompanied his reception of the Law, was so great that the Israelites could not bear to gaze upon it, although that law was merely a ministration of death, and of condemnation: much more will the ministration of the spirit, and of righteousness, be of surpassing glory. Again, Moses realized that the ‘glory’ on his face was transitory, and so be could not boldly leave his face uncovered. And the veil which he wore still lies, spiritually speaking, on the hearts of the Jewish nation, and will not be removed till they ‘turn to the Lord,’ as Moses used to remove it when he returned to the Divine presence. But we Christians can speak boldly, and with unveiled face can reflect the glory of the Lord. If we are told that our gospel is obscure and hidden by a veil, it is only so in the case of those who are spiritually perishing. It is they who have been blinded by the ‘god of this age,’ to prevent the ‘glory of God,’ which is, in fact, the Incarnate Christ, from dawning upon them.
(b) John 3:14. The Incarnation had its issue in the Passion. The connexion of this verse with John 3:13 by the opening ‘and,’ and the repetition of the title ‘Son of Man,’ express this thought (see Westcott, in loc). The difficulties in arriving at the ideas attached to the brazen serpent in the original story (Numbers 21:7-9), and of our Lord’s application of it, are great. Patristic writers deal with it in a variety of ways—some of them deeply suggestive (see Westcott, p. 63 ff.). Two points stand out clearly—the lifting up of the Son of Man upon the Cross, and the spiritual healing of those who look up with faith to Him. But two others suggest themselves, though we cannot estimate the exact part which they played in our Lord’s thought. (1) The serpent on the pole symbolized the evil from which the people had suffered; and Christ identified Himself with sinful humanity so completely, that when He was crucified He took sin ‘out of the way, nailing it to his cross’ (Colossians 2:14, cf. Galatians 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24, with (Revised Version margin) ). (2) The word ‘be lifted up’ (ὑψωθῆναι, exaltari) is applied elsewhere, not only to the Passion (John 8:28; John 12:32-34), but also to the Ascension (Acts 2:33; Acts 5:31, cf. Philippians 2:9 ὑπερύψωσεν). Christ ‘reigned from the Tree’ in the supreme moment of victory, but that was only the first stage in a triumphal progress upwards.
(c) John 19:36. Christ’s death and the shedding of His blood procured atonement. This, in the minds of all Christians, has its counterpart in the Passover (Hebrews 11:28). St. John traces a fulfilment of a particular detail in the fact that no bone of our Lord’s body was broken. And see 1 Corinthians 5:7 f.
(d) Christ’s sacrifice is more clearly connected with the covenant sacrifice at Horeb (Exodus 24:4-8). Our Lord explicitly refers to it in the words of the institution of the Eucharist (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:21, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25; see also Hebrews 9:18-20, 1 Peter 1:2, with Hort’s note).
(e) Hebrews 12:18-24. Though pleading in heaven, Christ is still present among men; He is still incarnate; hence the existence of the Church which is His Body. In these verses the position and condition of the Church under the New Covenant is contrasted with that of the Israelites at Sinai, the characteristics of the two covenants being summed up in the words ‘terror’ and ‘grace’ (cf. Keble’s Christian Year, ‘Whitsunday’).
(f) 1 Corinthians 10:2. Sacramental incorporation into Christ’s Divine life had its counterpart in the old Jewish Church; all the Israelites were ‘baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.’
John 6:30-35; John 6:41-58. By the other great sacrament, the Divine life is fed and nourished in the members of the Church. Our Lord teaches that ‘it was not Moses, but God revealing Himself through Moses, who gave the manna; and again the manna—the perishable bread—was not in the highest sense “bread from heaven,” but rather the symbol of spiritual food.’ [It is not here asserted that our Lord’s discourse had reference exclusively to the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, which He was afterwards to institute. But it must have been impossible for St. John—and it is impossible for us—having heard the words spoken at the Last Supper, not to see in the present passage their fullest and deepest application].
1 Corinthians 10:3-4. As Christ is the Bread of Life, so He is the Water of Life. The Israelites, in the mind of St. Paul, did not eat and drink mere physical food and water, but spiritual. The two accounts of the striking of the rock by Moses for the production of water (Exodus 17:6, Numbers 20:11) gave rise to the Rabbinic explanation that the rock which was struck followed them through the desert, affording a continual supply. That rock, says St. Paul, is typical of Christ.
(g) Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37. Besides the spiritual nourishment, which fosters the Divine life in the soul, Christians need a Teacher, who will at all times reveal the will of God. Both St. Peter and St. Stephen see in Christ the fulfilment of the declaration in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 that God would raise up a prophet like unto Moses. And John the Baptist, in his truthfulness and self-effacement, declares that he himself is not ‘the Prophet,’ but only a voice heralding His coming (John 1:21 ff.). And see John 6:14; John 7:40 [Luke 7:39].
(h) While the Israelites are the counterpart of the Christian Church, their enemies who opposed Moses (cf. 2 Timothy 3:8) afford a parallel to those who obey not the gospel. In Revelation 8:5; Revelation 8:7-8; Revelation 9:2-4; Revelation 15:6 ff; Revelation 16:2-4; Revelation 16:10; Revelation 16:13; Revelation 16:18; Revelation 16:21 the symbolism of punishment is clearly based on the plagues of Egypt. On the other hand, those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin can, like the Israelites rescued from Egypt, ‘sing the song of Moses the servant of God’ (Revelation 15:3).
Literature.—Besides the works mentioned in the article, reference should be made throughout to the principal commentaries on the NT. See also, for our Lord’s relation to the Law, artt. Accommodation, Authority of Christ, Law, Law of God.
A. H. M‘Neile.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Moses (2)'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/m/moses-2.html. 1906-1918.
