The Gospel of John, especially the first nine chapters, gives special emphasis to the type/anti-type relationship between Moses and Jesus. 1 In many ways, Jesus is similar to Moses. But in all ways, He is superior to him. As it is written in Hebrews, “Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant…but Christ as a Son over His own house (3:5-6a; see also Num.12:7).” The testimony of Scripture is clearly that Moses was an exemplary steward over God’s “house.” Christ, however, was not a steward over the possessions of another, but instead was a Son over His own house. So while Scripture teaches the comparison between the two great prophets, it unequivocally declares that Jesus is unique and superior because he was no mere mortal, but God in human flesh. This brief study will explore four of the ways in which Moses and Jesus are compared in John’s gospel.
Moses and Jesus both shared a special intimacy with God. Moses’ intimacy is perhaps unsurpassed in Scripture by any except the Lord Jesus Christ. It can certainly be argued that David deserves consideration, but even David did not experience the presence of God like Moses did as recorded in Exodus. But Moses’ experience of God’s glory, as unimaginable as it is, is less than a mere shadow of the intimacy the Son eternally enjoys as the Second Person of the Triune God.
After Moses had led the children of Israel out of the bondage of slavery in Egypt and through the crossing of the Red Sea, he continued to preside over them for the forty years that they spent wandering in the wilderness. During this time, he was the mediator of the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws that God gave to His people that they might prosper in the land He was giving them. While he was up on the mountain receiving instructions and commandments from the Lord, the children of Israel, characteristic of their stiff-necked and habitual rebellion, were worshiping a golden calf instead of waiting on the Living God. When Moses came down from the mountain and beheld the idolatry of the people, he threw down and destroyed in angry disgust the two tablets of the Testimony which had been engraved by the hand of God Himself. After punishing the Israelites for their rebellion, God once again called to Moses and spoke with him. In this context, Exodus 33:11a says that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (see also Num.12:8).” This same wording, “face to face,” is used to speak of other encounters that men had with God, yet none of those encounters hints at that long-term intimate fellowship enjoyed by Moses (see Gen.32:30; Deut.5:4; Judg.6:22). Moses did not just “see God face to face,” as is indicated of Jacob, Gideon, etc., but he conversed with Him in an intimate fellowship. The type of intimacy that Moses shared with God is summed up by Psalm 103:7: “[God] made known His ways to Moses, His acts to the children of Israel.” Many men, and even whole nations, witnessed the acts of the Almighty. But Moses had more than just a testimony of God’s acts; he knew His ways. It is the difference between knowing the “hand of God” and the “heart of God.” And the close of the book of Deuteronomy declares that there was no other prophet who knew God quite the way Moses did (34:10).
But even Moses was limited in the intimacy he could share with God. While God is said to speak “face to face” with Moses, it is an obvious figure of speech. When Moses expressed his desire to see God’s glory (Ex.33:18), God responded He could only reveal His “back” to Moses. No man could see His face and live (Ex.33:19-23). In contrast, John begins his gospel with the implication that Jesus, while sharing with Moses a deep intimacy with the Father, infinitely exceeds the level of intimacy that Moses could have experienced. John writes, in his familiar prologue, that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (1:1).” John’s wording literally means that “the Word was face to face with God.” So while Deuteronomy 34:10 tells us that after Moses there was no one who knew God with such face to face intimacy, John reveals that the Son of God has such a relationship in an eternal and infinite way. Moses’ intimacy was learned and cultivated; Jesus’ intimacy is immediate and perfect. Moses’ intimacy was a benefit of the grace and condescending of God; Jesus’ was the result of His oneness with God in the Divine Nature. So while they both indeed shared intimacy with the Father, Jesus shared it in a perfect, infinite and eternal way.
John develops this theme further in his gospel. He frequently employs the words “no one” and “anyone” to contrast all the rest of humanity with the unique Son of God. “ No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (1:18).” “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father (6:46).” “ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him (6:44).” “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (14:6).” Furthermore, John makes frequent reference to “the Father,” especially as it describes the perfectly intimate relationship that Jesus has with God. “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand (3:35).” “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working (5:17).” “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does (5:20).” “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him (5:23).” And perhaps most poignant of all: “O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You (17:25).”
John makes this explicit comparison in his prologue: “For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (1:17).” The Law, which whether by blessing or by cursing governed the people of God for 1500 years, is seen here as inferior to the greater revelation which came through the Son of God. Moses therefore, as the mediator of the more inferior covenant, is inferior to Christ who is the great Mediator between God and man (see 1 Tim.2:5; Heb.8:6). By contrasting Moses with Jesus and saying that truth came through Jesus, John does not mean to imply that what Moses revealed was not true. Indeed, Jesus did not come to abolish but to fulfill the Law (Matt.5:17-18) But the truth that came through Moses, though nevertheless true, was not a truth that saves but a truth that condemns. Therefore, the greater Truth, that which frees man from sin, comes through the greater Prophet (8:32; 14:6).
Scripture reveals that the Divine purpose for the Law was to reveal sin and expose a person’s need for Christ (Rom.7:7; Gal.3:19-25). As the saying goes, “You have to get a person lost before you get them saved.” That was the stewardship of Moses, if you will. The Law which was given by the hand of Moses was intended to expose the wickedness inside every man’s heart. To that end, the “law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good (Rom.7:12).” But the law cannot save a man. However true the law is, it does not have the power to save, only to condemn because of the power of sin (Rom.7:10).
On the other hand, as John notes, Jesus did not come to condemn the world, but to save the world. For the unbelieving world is already condemned (John 3:16-19). The truth that Jesus brought into the world is a truth that sets a man free (John 8:32; Rom.6:14). The law, because of the corruption in every man’s heart, brought bondage to sin and death. Thus, as the writer to the Hebrews declares, while “the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God (7:19; see also Acts 13:39). ”
Additionally, Jesus is the “grace of God that brings salvation”to all men (Titus 2:11). It is by grace we are saved (Eph.2:8) and all who attempt to be justified by law fall from that grace back into the legalism of the law (Gal. 5:4). The multitudes in heaven do not sing of the law of Moses, but of the redeeming blood of the Lamb (Rev.5:8-14). Consequently, while the rejection of the Mosaic law resulted in capital punishment, the rejection of the Lamb of God will result in far worse punishment because after Him there is no other remedy for sin (Heb.2:3;10:28-31).
Moses himself referred to a Prophet who would come at some later time in Israel’s history who would far exceed the prophetic office he held. The central passage that teaches this prophetic truth is Deuteronomy 18:18-19, where God speaks through the pen of Moses: “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.”
Though the passage is rich with manifold truths, what particularly interests us at this juncture is the phrase “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren.” It was not simply that God would someday raise up a great Prophet; but rather, that He would raise up a Prophet in the similitude of Moses. That this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ is made explicit in the New Testament (Acts 3:22-26; 7:37-53). But why is Jesus a prophet “like unto Moses” and not “like unto” one of the other great prophets? The reason can be found in that Moses was the prophet that God used to establish the dispensation that would govern His people until the “fulness of the time had come (Gal.4:4).” At that “fulness of time,” Jesus came and rescued the Law from Pharisaical perversion, fulfilled it in His Person, and established a new dispensation based upon His own law (Gal.6:2). As the writer to Hebrews labors to point out, the Old Covenant, represented by Moses, has passed away and the New Covenant, inaugurated by Christ, has permanently taken its place (see 8:7-13).
The Gospel of John advances this teaching and clearly points to Jesus as the greater Prophet of whom God spoke and Moses wrote. John, in fact, lays more emphasis on the teaching of “the Prophet” than any other gospel. Mark is the only other evangelist to even use the phrase “the Prophet” in reference to the expectation of the Jewish people (Mk.6:14-15). John, on the other hand, makes references to “the Prophet” in three different contexts. First, in John 1:19-27 when the people were inquiring about the prophetic identity of John the Baptist, they ask whether or not he is “the Prophet,” an identity he denies of himself. Later, in 6:14, a passage contained within a heavily Mosaic context, certain men who witnessed the miracle of the feeding of 5000 and heard the words of Jesus commensurate with that miracle decided amongst themselves that “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” The third and final context is found in 7:40 where the immediate context again draws the reader back to Moses. In verses 37-38, Jesus cried out to the multitudes that He was the Source of Living Water that would spring forth from the heart of anyone who placed their faith in Him. He spoke, as John comments, about the giving of the Holy Spirit which would be accomplished after Jesus was glorified. Having heard all their lives the story of God providing through Moses water from the rock to quench the thirst of the stiff-necked Jews (Ex.17:1-7), the crowd did not miss the significance of Jesus’ words and some said, “Truly this is the Prophet (John 7:40).” From these three explicit examples, it is clear that John is demonstrating both Jesus’ similarity to and His superiority over Moses in the prophetic office.
Further evidence of this is found elsewhere in John’s gospel, especially in the prologue. In 1:1, Jesus is the Word, the Logos, the Divine Reason made known to man. Additionally, Jesus is the “the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world (1:9),” which is the main function of prophecy (Pr.6:23; 2 Pet.1:19). John continues by telling his readers that this Logos was made flesh, dwelling among men (1:14). During His earthly sojourn, He declared (literally, “exegeted”) the Father to men, which epitomizes the role of a prophet. But John unequivocally writes that Jesus is a Prophet like none other before Him. Whereas Moses was the mediator of the law, Christ was the mediator of liberating truth and grace because as no one, including Moses, had ever seen God at any time, Jesus, having perfect, infinite, and eternal knowledge of God has declared Him to us. The writer to Hebrews put it this way, “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son (1:1-2).” One can also appeal to John 3:32-34; 7:16, 28-29; 8:28,38-40; 12:49; 17:8 for further convincing evidence that Jesus is not merely a prophet, but the Prophet that exceeds the prophetic office held by Moses.
John makes a comparison between Moses and Jesus that revolves around manna and the testing of faith (5:39-6:71). Moses was the mediator of the manna in the wilderness and the testing of that generation. Jesus is the Bread of Life and the One who tests the faith of His generation. The Bible makes it clear that God’s reason for giving the wilderness generation the manna was so He could test them to see whether or not they would walk in His law (Ex.16:4; Deut.8:3). That generation of grumblers and complainers had forfeited the privilege of crossing the Jordan and entering the promised land because of their unbelief (Heb.3:19). God used the imposition of daily dependence to test and try them and to reveal the hardness of their hearts.
Similarly, the clear implication of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6:22-71 is that Jesus was providing a new test of faith that centers not on a white coriander seed but on His very Person. In the last part of John 5, Jesus rebuked the Jews for falsely claiming Moses as their religious authority. Jesus declared that if they had truly believed Moses, then they would have believed in Him, because Moses wrote about Him (5:39-47). The point is clear: their allegiance to Moses was superficial and self-serving. If they truly believed the Scriptures, they would have realized that Jesus was the One to whom those Scriptures testified. But because in reality they had rejected Moses while at the same time using the Torah as a covering for evil, they also missed their Messiah when He came to them. After this confrontation, John records the miraculous feeding of the 5000 which, in John’s version, also contains certain Mosaic overtones. John is the only gospel to record that Jesus commanded that none be left over (6:12; cf. Ex.16:19) and that some men who witnessed the miracle believed that Jesus was the Prophet to come (6:14; cf. Deut.18:18).
The contrast between 6:24 and 6:29, at the beginning of the Bread of Life discourse, clearly implies that God is instigating a new test of His people’s faith. After Jesus fed the 5000, people began to follow Him in case He happened to pass out any more free meals. They were “seeking Jesus,” according to John, but for all the wrong reasons. In 6:29, however, Jesus sets the stage for the contrast between those seek Him merely to have their felt-needs met and those who seek Him as the one and only Source of eternal life. Jesus chastised the lunch-seeking crowd and challenged them to work not for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to eternal life. That work that endures to eternal life, Jesus told them, is the work of believing in the One whom God sent. Reminding Jesus of the sign of manna that legitimized Moses’ authority, the Jews demanded that Jesus give them a sign to prove that He was worthy of such trust. Jesus gave two responses: 1) it was not Moses but God who gave the fathers the manna; and 2) He was the true Manna from heaven that is the Source of eternal life.
Once Jesus identified Himself as the Bread of Life and that His flesh and blood is the Source of eternal life, the Jews found themselves in a crisis. How could this man claim to be from heaven when we know His parents? How can this Man give us His own body to eat? Jesus scandalized them by defining the character of the true belief that God was seeking. God would have none of the felt-needs seeking or superficial allegiance to Moses. Eternal life is found only in “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” of the Son of Man. And just as the wilderness generation died without entering the land because of their unbelief, many even of Christ’s own disciples turned away from Jesus at these sayings and followed Him no more (6:66). But Peter, speaking for the eleven, passed the test of faith. Realizing that Jesus was not promoting cannibalism but rather true faith, Peter confessed that only Jesus had the words of eternal life (6:68). And this is exactly the point of the comparison between Moses and Jesus. Moses gave the people manna in the wilderness. He also gave them the law and told them in his farewell address that “man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord (Deut.8:3).” The manna that Moses gave was bread alone and the law that he gave could not produce life. But Jesus, the Bread from heaven, is the Word of God that gives eternal life to all who come to Him.
Moses prophesied that God would raise up a greater Prophet someday. The people expected that Prophet to come and were even considering that Jesus was Him (John 6:14, 7:40). But most reacted to Him with even greater defiance than the wilderness generation reacted to Moses. Moses died on a mountain, God denying him entry into the promised land; Jesus was murdered on a hill providing atonement for those who would enter the eternal Promised Land. Both in His life and in His death, Jesus is infinitely superior to Moses because He is Himself the Great I AM that first called to Moses from the bush. Moses gave the Law; Jesus revealed the heart of the Law (Matt.5:1-7:27). The Law that Moses gave revealed sin and was an instrument of death (Rom.7:9-10). But grace and saving truth came through the Prophet Jesus who did not just point the way, but is the Way (John 14:6; see also Heb.2:10). And just as the wilderness generation was dependent upon Moses for the manna, so we too are dependent upon the Manna from heaven to give us life and life more abundantly.
FOOTNOTES
1:See J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), 50. A type is a “preordained representative relation which certain persons, events and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events and institutions in the New [the antitype].”