Original Meaning
The Report of Moses’ Death (34:1–6)
FOR A MAN WHO played such an important role in the history of Israel, the account of Moses’ death is remarkably modest, standing in sharpest contrast to elaborate texts, images, inscriptions, and monuments that significant persons outside Israel produced to commemorate their lives. Nowhere in the narratives of the Pentateuch or in his speeches on the Plains of Moab does he express the least interest in memorializing his name. Although Moses recognizes that his teaching is divinely authorized, he never calls it “my Torah,” or “the Torah of Moses.” It is simply (lit.) “this Torah,” or “this document of the Torah,”3 which he taught the people “as the LORD commanded” him.4 Later writers refer to Deuteronomy as “the tôrâ of Moses,”5 but Moses does not create the Torah as a memorial to himself; it is entirely a memorial to Yahweh’s grace.
As the final death report, Deuteronomy 34 recounts Moses’ ascent up Mount Nebo, his observation of the land (vv. 1–4), and his death and burial (vv. 5–6). The opening sentence and structural and lexical links between this text and 32:49–52 suggest this chapter continues that narrative (cf. 34:5), which was interrupted by the inserted poem blessing the tribes (33:1–29). The benediction may have fit more naturally after 32:47, suggesting the editor of the book intentionally created a buffer between Yahweh’s negative assessment of Moses (32:48–52) and his own much more positive eulogy. The present location of the blessing also creates the impression that as Moses climbed Mount Nebo, he turned around, saw the Israelites below him, and pronounced these blessings.
This is the first occurrence of the phrase “plains of Moab” in Deuteronomy.6 The word translated “plains” generally denotes “wasteland,” which suggests the people were camped in the desert north of this mountain range (cf. Num. 21:20). As noted on 3:27 and 32:49, Pisgah probably designates the mountain ridge of which Nebo is the peak, providing an excellent view of the land across the Jordan. The concluding phrase, “across from Jericho,” highlights both the geographical and historical contexts: Moses is on the very edge of the Promised Land, within sight of the major city of the region and the first target of the Israelites’ campaign of conquest. Although chapter 34 opens with a report of Moses’ ascent, the bulk of the paragraph focuses on Yahweh’s actions (vv. 1b, 4, 6). Verses 1b–3 describe the sequel to Yahweh’s order to Moses in 3:27 and 32:49. But the emphasis shifts from Moses seeing the land to Yahweh showing it to him.
The narrator highlights the scope of the survey more emphatically than in 3:27 in three ways. (1) He opens with “the LORD showed him the whole land” (v. 1). Since the extremities named below would probably have been beyond the range of the naked eye, Yahweh may have granted Moses extraordinary vision.
(2) The narrator specifies the regions surveyed. Moving in a counterclockwise direction, Moses looks straight north to Gilead (representing the eastern Transjordanian territories), to Napthali (representing the northern region between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean), Ephraim and Manasseh (representing the Israelite heartland across the Jordan), Judah (the region between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean), the Negev (the southern region as far as the Sinai peninsula), and coming full circle to the southern part of the Ghor, the rift valley dominated by the city of Jericho, “the City of Palms.”
(3) The narrator mentions the extremities of Moses’ gaze: from Gilead a hundred miles north as far as Dan, at the foot of Mount Hermon, sixty miles west as far as the western sea, and fifty miles south as far south as Zoar (cf. Gen. 19:22).7 Like Deuteronomy 33:22, the naming of Dan presupposes the migration of the Danites (Judg. 18), suggesting the book of Deuteronomy received its final form a century or more after Moses’ death. At the same time, the toponymic definition of the extremities as from Dan to Zoar may suggest that the account antedates the later period when “from Dan to Beersheba” became the stereotypical expression for the extreme northern and southern boundaries (e.g., 1 Sam. 3:20). While this emphasis on geography matches the focus of 1:1–5, the perspective has shifted from retrospection to prospection, anticipating Israel’s crossing the Jordan and occupation of the land.
In verse 4, Yahweh addresses Moses, declaring to him that this is indeed the land he had promised on oath to the ancestors. He summarizes the content of the oath in another embedded speech: “to your seed I will give it” (cf. 1:8; 11:9; pers. trans.).8 For Israel this declaration brings the book to an end on a hopeful note, but for Moses it was extremely painful. Without rehearsing the cause as he had in 32:50–52, Yahweh reminds him once more that he will not cross over there. Moses may only gaze at the prize with his eyes. With this statement, the forty-year conversation that Yahweh had initiated with his trusted servant in Midian (Ex. 3:6–10) ends. Moses will not experience the realization of the promise, but he will leave the stage knowing that Yahweh has been faithful both to the ancestors and to him.
The announcement of Moses’ death in verse 5 is brief and to the point. But even his death confirms Yahweh’s fidelity, for his demise transpires “as the LORD said.” This expression often refers to a command issued by Yahweh (e.g., Ex. 17:1; Num. 33:2, 38), which suggests that even in his death Moses proves a faithful servant (cf. 32:50). But the statement may also refer to Yahweh’s fulfillment of his own earlier prediction of Moses’ death (31:14).
In verse 5 the narrator identifies Moses by the honorific title “the servant of the LORD” for the first time.9 The notion of human beings functioning as servants of deities was widespread in the ancient Near East and is reflected in theophoric names that employ the root ʿebed in Hebrew (e.g., Obadiah, “one who serves Yahweh”).10 Although the word “servant” may denote menial status, phrases like “servant of the king” for court officials demonstrate that in contexts like this, it bears honorific significance (2 Kings 25:8).11
From a hagiographic perspective, the notice of Moses’ burial in verse 6 is striking on two accounts. (1) Whereas in the ancient world members of the family normally disposed of the body of the deceased, the narrator notes that Moses was buried by Yahweh himself. (2) Although the narrator specifies that he was buried in a valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth Peor (cf. 3:29; 4:3, 46), he adds that at the time of writing, the location was unknown. This comment intensifies the tragedy of Moses’ death. He died not having achieved the goal that obsessed him and was buried on foreign soil. Moses had reached his heavenly destination without having reached his earthly home. God had been with Moses throughout his life, but Moses was alone with God in his death.
Bridging Contexts
MOSES AS THE PROPHET? While David is arguably the most important human figure in the Old Testament,22 the image of Moses towers over the history of Israel from beginning to end, extending even to the New Testament. Despite his flaws and his personal failure to reach the Promised Land, Moses was the prophet par excellence. In his life, his actions, and his person, he embodied self-sacrificing service for Yahweh and for his people. Later authors would eulogize him as “the servant of the LORD,”23 the “man of God,”24 and “his chosen one” (Ps. 106:23). The New Testament association of Moses with the prophets25 follows a longstanding tradition. In fact, according to Hosea 12:13[14], it was as “a prophet” that Yahweh engaged Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt and to guard them.
While many readers find the portrayal of Moses in the narratives that began in Exodus 1 and end in Deuteronomy 34 and in the speeches of Deuteronomy to be larger than life,26 in both Old and New Testaments temptations to idolize him are resisted. Peter comes close, responding to Jesus’ transfiguration on the mountain between Moses and Elijah with a proposal to build three tabernacles, one for each of these figures. Apparently he thought that by associating Jesus with these two prophets of Israel, he would elevate him. But the gospel narratives quickly deflect the attention away from Moses and Elijah (who disappear) to Jesus, God’s beloved Son and his Chosen One, who remains alone on the mountain.27
Some see in the references to the prophet whom Yahweh will raise up in Deuteronomy 18:15 and especially the narrator’s observation that no prophet like Moses has yet appeared in Israel in 34:10 hints that the prophetic spirit had ceased in Israel and been replaced by Scripture, and the stage has been set for an eschatological prophet.28 The Qumran community developed two different dispositions toward Moses as an eschatological figure. In some circles the prophet “like Moses” (18:15–19) was expected to accompany the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.29 Others perceived the Teacher of Righteousness as a prophet after the model of Moses, that is, the authoritative leader and lawgiver of a new Israel still wandering in the desert in these last days.30
The New Testament provides ample evidence that many in Palestine at the time of Christ were awaiting an eschatological prophetic messiah. However, the role of eschatological prophet was fulfilled by John the Baptist, not Jesus.31 In Acts 3:12–26 Peter seems to have interpreted the prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18:15 in a collective sense, referring to the prophets whose predictions were fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah (v. 20), the servant raised up by God (v. 26).
Acts 7:20–44 provides a clear picture of the view of Moses in early Christianity. In Stephen’s lengthy survey of Moses’ role in the history of Israel, he refers to him as the one who had said to the Israelites, “God will send you a prophet like me from your own people” (v. 37). As is the case with Acts 3:22, New Testament scholars generally see in “a prophet like me” a reference to Christ.32 But this interpretation detracts from the overall thrust of the speech, whose purpose is to trace the history of Israel’s spiritual obstinacy. Stephen does indeed devote a major portion of his speech to Moses, specifically reviewing his call to the ministry of deliverance (vv. 20–34), followed by a summary statement of the people’s rejection of him despite his lofty standing with God and his status in the community (vv. 35–38), and ending with a prolonged indictment (vv. 39–43). The citation of Deuteronomy 18:15 occurs within Acts 7:35–38, where the emphasis is clearly on Moses, the one sent by God to rule and deliver Israel (v. 35), the one who performed signs and wonders before them for forty years (v. 36), the paradigmatic prophet (v. 37), the one who received the oracles from God, and who passed them on to the people. We detract from Stephen’s focus if we isolate the quotation in v. 37 and impose on it a messianic significance. Here Stephen’s attention is not on “a prophet like me,” let alone the Messiah,33 but on “me,” that is, Moses, who predicts that he is not the last prophet God will raise up. At best this passage allows for an analogical link between Moses and Jesus; the rejection of Jesus fits Israel’s longstanding pattern of rebellion against God, as supremely illustrated by their response to Moses, his agent of deliverance and revelation.34
Some scholars find in 34:10 evidence for a fundamental messianic hope pervading the entire Pentateuch and the anticipation of a messianic prophet still to come who will supersede Moses.35 However, this interpretation depends on a predisposition to look for messianic notions everywhere and is without foundation in the text itself. It is preferable to read the statement simply as an observation that at the time of the final composition of the book of Deuteronomy, and perhaps the Pentateuch as a whole, no prophet had arisen in Israel who could match the status, power, and influence of Moses.
Yahweh’s faithfulness. Apart from celebrating Moses’ life, this closing chapter celebrates Yahweh’s faithfulness. The Promised Land is literally in sight. Promises that were heard for the first time in Genesis 12:3 and that punctuated the patriarchal and exodus narratives are about to be fulfilled. All that remains is for Moses to die and his trusted lieutenant to take over. Led by Joshua, the Israelites will quickly take the land, but the real challenge will come thereafter. Will the voice of Israel’s greatest prophet continue to ring in the people’s ears, and will the people remain true to Yahweh after Moses and his successor are gone? The opening chapters of Judges show how short-lived Israel’s fidelity to the instruction of their beloved pastor would be. Indeed, the identification of Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, as the priest of the aberrant cult at Dan in Judges 18:30 suggests that the recidivism infected Moses’ own family within two generations.
But even as the closing chapter celebrates the life of Moses, it throws his death into starkest relief. We have been waiting for this moment since 31:1, making this the longest and most complex death narrative in the Old Testament. And in truth, the shadow of Moses’ imminent death has hung over the entire book. After all, the speeches we have heard in chapters 1–30 are the addresses of the head of this vast household preparing his people for his departure. By preserving these speeches, the narrator reminds his readers that the book as a whole is not about Moses; it is about the people’s relationship to Yahweh. Human leaders come and go; the question will be: Will God’s people be true to the eternal God? Will they allow Yahweh to lead them, not only in campaigns of conquest under Joshua, but also in paths of righteousness wherever they settle and live. The journey is not over until they are home spiritually as well as physically. The narratives in Joshua through Kings report how badly Israel fared.
The account of the death and burial of Moses on the mountain forces the reader to ask, “Now what?” The answer lies in the recognition that in the end, Israel’s fate is not in the hands of Moses. He is not the one who actually brought them out of Egypt and sustained them through the desert wanderings, and he will not complete the mission by delivering the Promised Land into their hands. The rest of the Scriptures are commentary not only on how Israel responded, but also on the fidelity of Yahweh, who will complete the present mission without Moses36 and who will patiently work with his people. Moses has merely been his mouthpiece, the interpreter of his great and gracious revelatory acts, whose aim was always to point his people to Yahweh their Redeemer.
Ultimately the New Testament gospel becomes the supreme fulfillment of the events begun here. As Moses had introduced the people to Yahweh, in all his grace and glory, so John the Baptist will introduce us to Jesus, Yahweh incarnate, through whose awesome signs and wonders his divine glory is revealed and we are delivered, not from the bondage of Egypt but from the bondage of sin. Through God’s gracious call we are adopted as God’s sons and daughters; and through his sustaining power we receive the eternal grant of life—to the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:1–14)!
Presumably the absence of any tradition about Moses’ grave in the Old Testament reflects a deliberate aversion to the potential apotheosis of Moses, which might have developed from the veneration of his grave as a sacred place.37 But this lack of information did not prevent the Israelites, especially the Jews in the intertestamental and rabbinic periods, from speculating about Moses’ departure from the earth. According to Josephus (Ant 4.8.48), Moses recorded his own death in anticipation of stories being told that he entered heaven alive because of his surpassing righteousness. The epistle of Jude (v. 9) alludes to a story involving a dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over the body of Moses. This tale apparently was included in the lost ending of a first-century BC document known as the Testament of Moses.38 In Jewish tradition the rabbis would debate whether Moses even died or was transported directly to heaven.39
Laying on of hands. When Moses laid his hands on Joshua, he performed a ritual by which divine authority and power is transferred from one person to another. This ritual resurfaces in the New Testament. Jesus often laid his hands on the sick and healed them,40 and the apostles carried on this tradition (Acts 28:8). But the gesture was a special part of the ordination ritual, by which people were recognized as called of God and sent out with the authority of those who laid their hands on them—and ultimately the authority of God.41 In Acts 13:2–4 the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the sending agent. Generally it was perceived that by this gesture the Holy Spirit himself passed through the hands to the ordinand (Acts 8:19).42 In John 20:21–23 Jesus performs the gesture somewhat differently—presumably because he is God himself. Instead of laying his hands on his disciples, Jesus breathes on them, declaring, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” In this way he authorizes them to declare the forgiveness of sins.
Contemporary Significance
MOSES NOT PARADIGMATIC. IF Moses was the paradigmatic prophet of all Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, we need to consider whether he may serve as a paradigm for ministers of the gospel today. We recognize at the outset that Moses was an imperfect vessel, resistant to God’s call, on occasion hotheaded and reckless in his performance of his duties, and frustrated with his people. However, by God’s grace and through his pursuit of righteousness, this dishonorable vessel became “an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work” (2 Tim. 2:21). We recognize also that he was called to a unique mission within the context of God’s program of salvation for the world. Once Egypt’s role as incubator in which Jacob’s seventy descendants could grow into an innumerable host had been fulfilled (Deut. 10:22; 26:5–10), in the fullness of time (Gen. 15:13–16) and in response to the cries of the Israelites (Ex. 2:23–25), God called this man to be the agent through whom his deliverance, protection, and revelation would be accomplished.
Contrary to the comment of the Israelites at Sinai (Ex. 32:1), Moses was not the deliverer, for Yahweh was the one who brought Israel out of Egypt.43 Moses was merely the (privileged and burdened) human agent through whom Yahweh would perform this saving work (Ex. 3–4: Hos. 12:13[14]). The New Testament recognizes Moses as a key figure in this climactic moment of grace: “From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing superceding another; for the Torah was given through Moses, while grace and truth happened in Jesus Christ” (John 1:16–17, pers. trans.). Because of Moses’ unique place in God’s salvation history, several aspects of his ministry are not intended necessarily to be paradigmatic. The narrator recognizes that for the signs and wonders and awesome acts of power that Moses performed, he was without equal, and later Scriptures offer no hint that prophets viewed this aspect of his ministry as a bar they would aspire to reach or even view as normative.44
The same seems true in the New Testament. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, as well as the birth of the church, were accompanied by revelatory signs and wonders, authenticating Jesus as Yahweh come in the flesh and announcing the dawn of the new age. But neither the New Testament correspondence in general nor the Pastoral Letters in particular suggest these were to become enduring and normative evidences of the work of the Spirit of God. Like Pastor Moses, the authors of the letters call for submission to Christ demonstrated in renewed minds and transformed lives. These are the true evidences of the work of God.
Moses as paradigmatic. However, in other respects the pastoral ministry of Moses is paradigmatic. All who are called to divine service should surely emulate his passion for the agenda to which God has called them, his determination to preach only in accordance with the revealed will of God, his plea for gratitude for the grace of God in salvation and providential care, his call for wholehearted and full-bodied obedience to God’s will as the proper response to divine grace, his realistic view of his congregation, his vision of the church in God’s program of salvation for the world (Deut. 26:19), his refusal to erect monuments in his own honor, and his confidence in God to do his work by his means. The flavor of ministry that arises from these commitments differs greatly from the self-serving, egotistical, and pandering paradigm of ministry that drives so much of the evangelical world.
Moses was a shepherd after the order of Christ as described in 1 Peter 5:1–6, and after the order of Yahweh as celebrated in Psalm 23—perhaps the finest pastoral text in Scripture. Like Yahweh—incarnate in the good Shepherd, Jesus Christ—Moses provided his people what they really needed: nourishment and rest. He guided them in paths of righteousness; he walked with them through valleys of deepest darkness; and he invited them to come and celebrate in the presence of the Lord. May the Lord raise up for his work in our day pastors in the order of Christ our Shepherd. May his servants find inspiration for their ministry in Moses, the humblest man on earth (Num. 12:3), and may they find nourishment in the life-giving Torah he left as a monument to the honor and praise of God.
Original Meaning
The Response to Moses’ Death (34:7–8)
IN VERSE 7 THE focus returns to Moses. In keeping with other biblical death narratives,12 the first statement reports Moses’ age at the time of his death: 120 years (cf. 31:2). But the narrator adds an interesting detail about Moses’ remarkable physical condition: when he died, he had 20/20 vision13 and his vigor had not waned. What the narrator meant by “nor his strength gone” is unclear. Most translations understand this expression to mean something like “life force, virility,” but some argue that it refers to his skin, which had not lost its moisture and become wrinkled.14 In either case, the years in the desert affected Moses quite differently from his fellow Israelites, who all died prematurely (8:4). Moses died neither of old age nor disease, but simply because within the divine plan his time was up. As the Israelites had done for Aaron (Num. 20:29), they mourned Moses’ passing for thirty days (v. 8), apparently the conventional length of mourning in ancient Israel.15
Bridging Contexts
MOSES AS THE PROPHET? While David is arguably the most important human figure in the Old Testament,22 the image of Moses towers over the history of Israel from beginning to end, extending even to the New Testament. Despite his flaws and his personal failure to reach the Promised Land, Moses was the prophet par excellence. In his life, his actions, and his person, he embodied self-sacrificing service for Yahweh and for his people. Later authors would eulogize him as “the servant of the LORD,”23 the “man of God,”24 and “his chosen one” (Ps. 106:23). The New Testament association of Moses with the prophets25 follows a longstanding tradition. In fact, according to Hosea 12:13[14], it was as “a prophet” that Yahweh engaged Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt and to guard them.
While many readers find the portrayal of Moses in the narratives that began in Exodus 1 and end in Deuteronomy 34 and in the speeches of Deuteronomy to be larger than life,26 in both Old and New Testaments temptations to idolize him are resisted. Peter comes close, responding to Jesus’ transfiguration on the mountain between Moses and Elijah with a proposal to build three tabernacles, one for each of these figures. Apparently he thought that by associating Jesus with these two prophets of Israel, he would elevate him. But the gospel narratives quickly deflect the attention away from Moses and Elijah (who disappear) to Jesus, God’s beloved Son and his Chosen One, who remains alone on the mountain.27
Some see in the references to the prophet whom Yahweh will raise up in Deuteronomy 18:15 and especially the narrator’s observation that no prophet like Moses has yet appeared in Israel in 34:10 hints that the prophetic spirit had ceased in Israel and been replaced by Scripture, and the stage has been set for an eschatological prophet.28 The Qumran community developed two different dispositions toward Moses as an eschatological figure. In some circles the prophet “like Moses” (18:15–19) was expected to accompany the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.29 Others perceived the Teacher of Righteousness as a prophet after the model of Moses, that is, the authoritative leader and lawgiver of a new Israel still wandering in the desert in these last days.30
The New Testament provides ample evidence that many in Palestine at the time of Christ were awaiting an eschatological prophetic messiah. However, the role of eschatological prophet was fulfilled by John the Baptist, not Jesus.31 In Acts 3:12–26 Peter seems to have interpreted the prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18:15 in a collective sense, referring to the prophets whose predictions were fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah (v. 20), the servant raised up by God (v. 26).
Acts 7:20–44 provides a clear picture of the view of Moses in early Christianity. In Stephen’s lengthy survey of Moses’ role in the history of Israel, he refers to him as the one who had said to the Israelites, “God will send you a prophet like me from your own people” (v. 37). As is the case with Acts 3:22, New Testament scholars generally see in “a prophet like me” a reference to Christ.32 But this interpretation detracts from the overall thrust of the speech, whose purpose is to trace the history of Israel’s spiritual obstinacy. Stephen does indeed devote a major portion of his speech to Moses, specifically reviewing his call to the ministry of deliverance (vv. 20–34), followed by a summary statement of the people’s rejection of him despite his lofty standing with God and his status in the community (vv. 35–38), and ending with a prolonged indictment (vv. 39–43). The citation of Deuteronomy 18:15 occurs within Acts 7:35–38, where the emphasis is clearly on Moses, the one sent by God to rule and deliver Israel (v. 35), the one who performed signs and wonders before them for forty years (v. 36), the paradigmatic prophet (v. 37), the one who received the oracles from God, and who passed them on to the people. We detract from Stephen’s focus if we isolate the quotation in v. 37 and impose on it a messianic significance. Here Stephen’s attention is not on “a prophet like me,” let alone the Messiah,33 but on “me,” that is, Moses, who predicts that he is not the last prophet God will raise up. At best this passage allows for an analogical link between Moses and Jesus; the rejection of Jesus fits Israel’s longstanding pattern of rebellion against God, as supremely illustrated by their response to Moses, his agent of deliverance and revelation.34
Some scholars find in 34:10 evidence for a fundamental messianic hope pervading the entire Pentateuch and the anticipation of a messianic prophet still to come who will supersede Moses.35 However, this interpretation depends on a predisposition to look for messianic notions everywhere and is without foundation in the text itself. It is preferable to read the statement simply as an observation that at the time of the final composition of the book of Deuteronomy, and perhaps the Pentateuch as a whole, no prophet had arisen in Israel who could match the status, power, and influence of Moses.
Yahweh’s faithfulness. Apart from celebrating Moses’ life, this closing chapter celebrates Yahweh’s faithfulness. The Promised Land is literally in sight. Promises that were heard for the first time in Genesis 12:3 and that punctuated the patriarchal and exodus narratives are about to be fulfilled. All that remains is for Moses to die and his trusted lieutenant to take over. Led by Joshua, the Israelites will quickly take the land, but the real challenge will come thereafter. Will the voice of Israel’s greatest prophet continue to ring in the people’s ears, and will the people remain true to Yahweh after Moses and his successor are gone? The opening chapters of Judges show how short-lived Israel’s fidelity to the instruction of their beloved pastor would be. Indeed, the identification of Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, as the priest of the aberrant cult at Dan in Judges 18:30 suggests that the recidivism infected Moses’ own family within two generations.
But even as the closing chapter celebrates the life of Moses, it throws his death into starkest relief. We have been waiting for this moment since 31:1, making this the longest and most complex death narrative in the Old Testament. And in truth, the shadow of Moses’ imminent death has hung over the entire book. After all, the speeches we have heard in chapters 1–30 are the addresses of the head of this vast household preparing his people for his departure. By preserving these speeches, the narrator reminds his readers that the book as a whole is not about Moses; it is about the people’s relationship to Yahweh. Human leaders come and go; the question will be: Will God’s people be true to the eternal God? Will they allow Yahweh to lead them, not only in campaigns of conquest under Joshua, but also in paths of righteousness wherever they settle and live. The journey is not over until they are home spiritually as well as physically. The narratives in Joshua through Kings report how badly Israel fared.
The account of the death and burial of Moses on the mountain forces the reader to ask, “Now what?” The answer lies in the recognition that in the end, Israel’s fate is not in the hands of Moses. He is not the one who actually brought them out of Egypt and sustained them through the desert wanderings, and he will not complete the mission by delivering the Promised Land into their hands. The rest of the Scriptures are commentary not only on how Israel responded, but also on the fidelity of Yahweh, who will complete the present mission without Moses36 and who will patiently work with his people. Moses has merely been his mouthpiece, the interpreter of his great and gracious revelatory acts, whose aim was always to point his people to Yahweh their Redeemer.
Ultimately the New Testament gospel becomes the supreme fulfillment of the events begun here. As Moses had introduced the people to Yahweh, in all his grace and glory, so John the Baptist will introduce us to Jesus, Yahweh incarnate, through whose awesome signs and wonders his divine glory is revealed and we are delivered, not from the bondage of Egypt but from the bondage of sin. Through God’s gracious call we are adopted as God’s sons and daughters; and through his sustaining power we receive the eternal grant of life—to the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:1–14)!
Presumably the absence of any tradition about Moses’ grave in the Old Testament reflects a deliberate aversion to the potential apotheosis of Moses, which might have developed from the veneration of his grave as a sacred place.37 But this lack of information did not prevent the Israelites, especially the Jews in the intertestamental and rabbinic periods, from speculating about Moses’ departure from the earth. According to Josephus (Ant 4.8.48), Moses recorded his own death in anticipation of stories being told that he entered heaven alive because of his surpassing righteousness. The epistle of Jude (v. 9) alludes to a story involving a dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over the body of Moses. This tale apparently was included in the lost ending of a first-century BC document known as the Testament of Moses.38 In Jewish tradition the rabbis would debate whether Moses even died or was transported directly to heaven.39
Laying on of hands. When Moses laid his hands on Joshua, he performed a ritual by which divine authority and power is transferred from one person to another. This ritual resurfaces in the New Testament. Jesus often laid his hands on the sick and healed them,40 and the apostles carried on this tradition (Acts 28:8). But the gesture was a special part of the ordination ritual, by which people were recognized as called of God and sent out with the authority of those who laid their hands on them—and ultimately the authority of God.41 In Acts 13:2–4 the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the sending agent. Generally it was perceived that by this gesture the Holy Spirit himself passed through the hands to the ordinand (Acts 8:19).42 In John 20:21–23 Jesus performs the gesture somewhat differently—presumably because he is God himself. Instead of laying his hands on his disciples, Jesus breathes on them, declaring, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” In this way he authorizes them to declare the forgiveness of sins.
Contemporary Significance
MOSES NOT PARADIGMATIC. IF Moses was the paradigmatic prophet of all Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, we need to consider whether he may serve as a paradigm for ministers of the gospel today. We recognize at the outset that Moses was an imperfect vessel, resistant to God’s call, on occasion hotheaded and reckless in his performance of his duties, and frustrated with his people. However, by God’s grace and through his pursuit of righteousness, this dishonorable vessel became “an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work” (2 Tim. 2:21). We recognize also that he was called to a unique mission within the context of God’s program of salvation for the world. Once Egypt’s role as incubator in which Jacob’s seventy descendants could grow into an innumerable host had been fulfilled (Deut. 10:22; 26:5–10), in the fullness of time (Gen. 15:13–16) and in response to the cries of the Israelites (Ex. 2:23–25), God called this man to be the agent through whom his deliverance, protection, and revelation would be accomplished.
Contrary to the comment of the Israelites at Sinai (Ex. 32:1), Moses was not the deliverer, for Yahweh was the one who brought Israel out of Egypt.43 Moses was merely the (privileged and burdened) human agent through whom Yahweh would perform this saving work (Ex. 3–4: Hos. 12:13[14]). The New Testament recognizes Moses as a key figure in this climactic moment of grace: “From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing superceding another; for the Torah was given through Moses, while grace and truth happened in Jesus Christ” (John 1:16–17, pers. trans.). Because of Moses’ unique place in God’s salvation history, several aspects of his ministry are not intended necessarily to be paradigmatic. The narrator recognizes that for the signs and wonders and awesome acts of power that Moses performed, he was without equal, and later Scriptures offer no hint that prophets viewed this aspect of his ministry as a bar they would aspire to reach or even view as normative.44
The same seems true in the New Testament. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, as well as the birth of the church, were accompanied by revelatory signs and wonders, authenticating Jesus as Yahweh come in the flesh and announcing the dawn of the new age. But neither the New Testament correspondence in general nor the Pastoral Letters in particular suggest these were to become enduring and normative evidences of the work of the Spirit of God. Like Pastor Moses, the authors of the letters call for submission to Christ demonstrated in renewed minds and transformed lives. These are the true evidences of the work of God.
Moses as paradigmatic. However, in other respects the pastoral ministry of Moses is paradigmatic. All who are called to divine service should surely emulate his passion for the agenda to which God has called them, his determination to preach only in accordance with the revealed will of God, his plea for gratitude for the grace of God in salvation and providential care, his call for wholehearted and full-bodied obedience to God’s will as the proper response to divine grace, his realistic view of his congregation, his vision of the church in God’s program of salvation for the world (Deut. 26:19), his refusal to erect monuments in his own honor, and his confidence in God to do his work by his means. The flavor of ministry that arises from these commitments differs greatly from the self-serving, egotistical, and pandering paradigm of ministry that drives so much of the evangelical world.
Moses was a shepherd after the order of Christ as described in 1 Peter 5:1–6, and after the order of Yahweh as celebrated in Psalm 23—perhaps the finest pastoral text in Scripture. Like Yahweh—incarnate in the good Shepherd, Jesus Christ—Moses provided his people what they really needed: nourishment and rest. He guided them in paths of righteousness; he walked with them through valleys of deepest darkness; and he invited them to come and celebrate in the presence of the Lord. May the Lord raise up for his work in our day pastors in the order of Christ our Shepherd. May his servants find inspiration for their ministry in Moses, the humblest man on earth (Num. 12:3), and may they find nourishment in the life-giving Torah he left as a monument to the honor and praise of God.
Original Meaning
Epitaph: The Narrator’s Commentary on Moses (34:9–12)
ALTHOUGH NEITHER THE NARRATIVES of Exodus through Numbers nor Moses’ first speech in Deuteronomy mask the flaws in the man’s temperament and character, the narrator’s extreme admiration for Moses is evident in the conclusion to this book. The grammatical construction of the first sentence of verse 9 shifts the attention from Moses to Joshua son of Nun, but in so doing it still honors Moses. Because Moses had laid his hands on Joshua,16 the latter was filled with the spirit of wisdom and the people listened to him as Yahweh had commanded through Moses.
The expression “spirit of wisdom” occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament in Exodus 28:3 and Isaiah 11:1–2. In both, it represents a special divine endowment for the fulfillment of a divinely ordained role. Through Moses’ ritual gesture Joshua was authorized and empowered to administer the nation justly and to embody the righteousness of the Torah (cf. 17:14–20).17 This “spirit of wisdom” is distinct from the “spirit” attributed to Joshua in Numbers 27:18. (1) Whereas in the earlier passage rûaḥ refers to the proper disposition toward Yahweh that Joshua exhibited prior to his ordination, here the narrator declares that Joshua was divinely endowed with the spirit of wisdom because Moses ordained him.
(2) Whereas the earlier passage has Moses taking hold of Joshua and laying his hand on him, this text lacks any reference to Moses’ “taking” him and replaces the singular “hand” with the plural “hands.” Rituals involving both hands result in the transference of something from one object to another (cf. Lev. 16:21).18 While not explicitly declared, the present statement assumes that Moses possessed the same spirit of wisdom, and that when he laid his hands on Joshua, that divine spirit passed from him to Joshua. Recognizing the significance of this liturgical act and undoubtedly the evidence of the spirit in Joshua, the people responded to him with loyalty and obedience.
The narrator concludes his biography of Moses with an unrestrained eulogy. At the time of writing, Israel had seen no prophet comparable in stature and power with Moses. The reference to Moses as “prophet” recalls 18:15. Moses performed many administrative, judicial, and even priestly functions, but he is never identified as a judge, ruler, priest, or lawgiver.19 In Moses’ own mind and in the narrator’s mind he was the paradigmatic prophet. With his use of the verb “to rise,” the narrator links his eulogy with Moses’ own prediction in 18:15, that Yahweh would raise up an authoritative prophet like him from among the people.
The reference to Moses’ incomparability as prophet implies that some time had elapsed between the death of Moses and the writing of this epitaph and that Israel had been served by a series of prophetic successors to Moses by this time. The narrator explains in considerable detail why he deemed Moses to be exceptional. (1) No other prophet was as intimate with Yahweh as Moses was: Yahweh knew him “face to face.” The idiom speaks of an intimate and direct relationship—without need for an intermediary (cf. Ex. 33:11; Num. 12:6–8).
(2) No other prophet performed the kinds of actions that Moses did on Yahweh’s behalf (v. 11). In fact, Yahweh sent him to perform “signs and wonders” in the land of Egypt before Pharaoh, all his servants, and his entire land, and to demonstrate his “mighty power” in the sight of the Israelites. Previously in Deuteronomy Moses always attributed these portentous acts to Yahweh himself (4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 26:8; 29:3[2]). Apparently to the narrator these signs and wonders both served the divine revelatory agenda and authenticated Moses as the indisputable prophet of Yahweh.20 With this statement the narrator has not only eulogized Moses; he has also reinforced his words in 4:2; 12:32[13:1], as well as the narrator’s own comments in 31:24, 30. He thus validates the speeches of Moses and their final committal to writing in the book of Deuteronomy.21
Bridging Contexts
MOSES AS THE PROPHET? While David is arguably the most important human figure in the Old Testament,22 the image of Moses towers over the history of Israel from beginning to end, extending even to the New Testament. Despite his flaws and his personal failure to reach the Promised Land, Moses was the prophet par excellence. In his life, his actions, and his person, he embodied self-sacrificing service for Yahweh and for his people. Later authors would eulogize him as “the servant of the LORD,”23 the “man of God,”24 and “his chosen one” (Ps. 106:23). The New Testament association of Moses with the prophets25 follows a longstanding tradition. In fact, according to Hosea 12:13[14], it was as “a prophet” that Yahweh engaged Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt and to guard them.
While many readers find the portrayal of Moses in the narratives that began in Exodus 1 and end in Deuteronomy 34 and in the speeches of Deuteronomy to be larger than life,26 in both Old and New Testaments temptations to idolize him are resisted. Peter comes close, responding to Jesus’ transfiguration on the mountain between Moses and Elijah with a proposal to build three tabernacles, one for each of these figures. Apparently he thought that by associating Jesus with these two prophets of Israel, he would elevate him. But the gospel narratives quickly deflect the attention away from Moses and Elijah (who disappear) to Jesus, God’s beloved Son and his Chosen One, who remains alone on the mountain.27
Some see in the references to the prophet whom Yahweh will raise up in Deuteronomy 18:15 and especially the narrator’s observation that no prophet like Moses has yet appeared in Israel in 34:10 hints that the prophetic spirit had ceased in Israel and been replaced by Scripture, and the stage has been set for an eschatological prophet.28 The Qumran community developed two different dispositions toward Moses as an eschatological figure. In some circles the prophet “like Moses” (18:15–19) was expected to accompany the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.29 Others perceived the Teacher of Righteousness as a prophet after the model of Moses, that is, the authoritative leader and lawgiver of a new Israel still wandering in the desert in these last days.30
The New Testament provides ample evidence that many in Palestine at the time of Christ were awaiting an eschatological prophetic messiah. However, the role of eschatological prophet was fulfilled by John the Baptist, not Jesus.31 In Acts 3:12–26 Peter seems to have interpreted the prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18:15 in a collective sense, referring to the prophets whose predictions were fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah (v. 20), the servant raised up by God (v. 26).
Acts 7:20–44 provides a clear picture of the view of Moses in early Christianity. In Stephen’s lengthy survey of Moses’ role in the history of Israel, he refers to him as the one who had said to the Israelites, “God will send you a prophet like me from your own people” (v. 37). As is the case with Acts 3:22, New Testament scholars generally see in “a prophet like me” a reference to Christ.32 But this interpretation detracts from the overall thrust of the speech, whose purpose is to trace the history of Israel’s spiritual obstinacy. Stephen does indeed devote a major portion of his speech to Moses, specifically reviewing his call to the ministry of deliverance (vv. 20–34), followed by a summary statement of the people’s rejection of him despite his lofty standing with God and his status in the community (vv. 35–38), and ending with a prolonged indictment (vv. 39–43). The citation of Deuteronomy 18:15 occurs within Acts 7:35–38, where the emphasis is clearly on Moses, the one sent by God to rule and deliver Israel (v. 35), the one who performed signs and wonders before them for forty years (v. 36), the paradigmatic prophet (v. 37), the one who received the oracles from God, and who passed them on to the people. We detract from Stephen’s focus if we isolate the quotation in v. 37 and impose on it a messianic significance. Here Stephen’s attention is not on “a prophet like me,” let alone the Messiah,33 but on “me,” that is, Moses, who predicts that he is not the last prophet God will raise up. At best this passage allows for an analogical link between Moses and Jesus; the rejection of Jesus fits Israel’s longstanding pattern of rebellion against God, as supremely illustrated by their response to Moses, his agent of deliverance and revelation.34
Some scholars find in 34:10 evidence for a fundamental messianic hope pervading the entire Pentateuch and the anticipation of a messianic prophet still to come who will supersede Moses.35 However, this interpretation depends on a predisposition to look for messianic notions everywhere and is without foundation in the text itself. It is preferable to read the statement simply as an observation that at the time of the final composition of the book of Deuteronomy, and perhaps the Pentateuch as a whole, no prophet had arisen in Israel who could match the status, power, and influence of Moses.
Yahweh’s faithfulness. Apart from celebrating Moses’ life, this closing chapter celebrates Yahweh’s faithfulness. The Promised Land is literally in sight. Promises that were heard for the first time in Genesis 12:3 and that punctuated the patriarchal and exodus narratives are about to be fulfilled. All that remains is for Moses to die and his trusted lieutenant to take over. Led by Joshua, the Israelites will quickly take the land, but the real challenge will come thereafter. Will the voice of Israel’s greatest prophet continue to ring in the people’s ears, and will the people remain true to Yahweh after Moses and his successor are gone? The opening chapters of Judges show how short-lived Israel’s fidelity to the instruction of their beloved pastor would be. Indeed, the identification of Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, as the priest of the aberrant cult at Dan in Judges 18:30 suggests that the recidivism infected Moses’ own family within two generations.
But even as the closing chapter celebrates the life of Moses, it throws his death into starkest relief. We have been waiting for this moment since 31:1, making this the longest and most complex death narrative in the Old Testament. And in truth, the shadow of Moses’ imminent death has hung over the entire book. After all, the speeches we have heard in chapters 1–30 are the addresses of the head of this vast household preparing his people for his departure. By preserving these speeches, the narrator reminds his readers that the book as a whole is not about Moses; it is about the people’s relationship to Yahweh. Human leaders come and go; the question will be: Will God’s people be true to the eternal God? Will they allow Yahweh to lead them, not only in campaigns of conquest under Joshua, but also in paths of righteousness wherever they settle and live. The journey is not over until they are home spiritually as well as physically. The narratives in Joshua through Kings report how badly Israel fared.
The account of the death and burial of Moses on the mountain forces the reader to ask, “Now what?” The answer lies in the recognition that in the end, Israel’s fate is not in the hands of Moses. He is not the one who actually brought them out of Egypt and sustained them through the desert wanderings, and he will not complete the mission by delivering the Promised Land into their hands. The rest of the Scriptures are commentary not only on how Israel responded, but also on the fidelity of Yahweh, who will complete the present mission without Moses36 and who will patiently work with his people. Moses has merely been his mouthpiece, the interpreter of his great and gracious revelatory acts, whose aim was always to point his people to Yahweh their Redeemer.
Ultimately the New Testament gospel becomes the supreme fulfillment of the events begun here. As Moses had introduced the people to Yahweh, in all his grace and glory, so John the Baptist will introduce us to Jesus, Yahweh incarnate, through whose awesome signs and wonders his divine glory is revealed and we are delivered, not from the bondage of Egypt but from the bondage of sin. Through God’s gracious call we are adopted as God’s sons and daughters; and through his sustaining power we receive the eternal grant of life—to the praise of his glory (Eph. 1:1–14)!
Presumably the absence of any tradition about Moses’ grave in the Old Testament reflects a deliberate aversion to the potential apotheosis of Moses, which might have developed from the veneration of his grave as a sacred place.37 But this lack of information did not prevent the Israelites, especially the Jews in the intertestamental and rabbinic periods, from speculating about Moses’ departure from the earth. According to Josephus (Ant 4.8.48), Moses recorded his own death in anticipation of stories being told that he entered heaven alive because of his surpassing righteousness. The epistle of Jude (v. 9) alludes to a story involving a dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over the body of Moses. This tale apparently was included in the lost ending of a first-century BC document known as the Testament of Moses.38 In Jewish tradition the rabbis would debate whether Moses even died or was transported directly to heaven.39
Laying on of hands. When Moses laid his hands on Joshua, he performed a ritual by which divine authority and power is transferred from one person to another. This ritual resurfaces in the New Testament. Jesus often laid his hands on the sick and healed them,40 and the apostles carried on this tradition (Acts 28:8). But the gesture was a special part of the ordination ritual, by which people were recognized as called of God and sent out with the authority of those who laid their hands on them—and ultimately the authority of God.41 In Acts 13:2–4 the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the sending agent. Generally it was perceived that by this gesture the Holy Spirit himself passed through the hands to the ordinand (Acts 8:19).42 In John 20:21–23 Jesus performs the gesture somewhat differently—presumably because he is God himself. Instead of laying his hands on his disciples, Jesus breathes on them, declaring, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” In this way he authorizes them to declare the forgiveness of sins.
Contemporary Significance
MOSES NOT PARADIGMATIC. IF Moses was the paradigmatic prophet of all Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, we need to consider whether he may serve as a paradigm for ministers of the gospel today. We recognize at the outset that Moses was an imperfect vessel, resistant to God’s call, on occasion hotheaded and reckless in his performance of his duties, and frustrated with his people. However, by God’s grace and through his pursuit of righteousness, this dishonorable vessel became “an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work” (2 Tim. 2:21). We recognize also that he was called to a unique mission within the context of God’s program of salvation for the world. Once Egypt’s role as incubator in which Jacob’s seventy descendants could grow into an innumerable host had been fulfilled (Deut. 10:22; 26:5–10), in the fullness of time (Gen. 15:13–16) and in response to the cries of the Israelites (Ex. 2:23–25), God called this man to be the agent through whom his deliverance, protection, and revelation would be accomplished.
Contrary to the comment of the Israelites at Sinai (Ex. 32:1), Moses was not the deliverer, for Yahweh was the one who brought Israel out of Egypt.43 Moses was merely the (privileged and burdened) human agent through whom Yahweh would perform this saving work (Ex. 3–4: Hos. 12:13[14]). The New Testament recognizes Moses as a key figure in this climactic moment of grace: “From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing superceding another; for the Torah was given through Moses, while grace and truth happened in Jesus Christ” (John 1:16–17, pers. trans.). Because of Moses’ unique place in God’s salvation history, several aspects of his ministry are not intended necessarily to be paradigmatic. The narrator recognizes that for the signs and wonders and awesome acts of power that Moses performed, he was without equal, and later Scriptures offer no hint that prophets viewed this aspect of his ministry as a bar they would aspire to reach or even view as normative.44
The same seems true in the New Testament. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, as well as the birth of the church, were accompanied by revelatory signs and wonders, authenticating Jesus as Yahweh come in the flesh and announcing the dawn of the new age. But neither the New Testament correspondence in general nor the Pastoral Letters in particular suggest these were to become enduring and normative evidences of the work of the Spirit of God. Like Pastor Moses, the authors of the letters call for submission to Christ demonstrated in renewed minds and transformed lives. These are the true evidences of the work of God.
Moses as paradigmatic. However, in other respects the pastoral ministry of Moses is paradigmatic. All who are called to divine service should surely emulate his passion for the agenda to which God has called them, his determination to preach only in accordance with the revealed will of God, his plea for gratitude for the grace of God in salvation and providential care, his call for wholehearted and full-bodied obedience to God’s will as the proper response to divine grace, his realistic view of his congregation, his vision of the church in God’s program of salvation for the world (Deut. 26:19), his refusal to erect monuments in his own honor, and his confidence in God to do his work by his means. The flavor of ministry that arises from these commitments differs greatly from the self-serving, egotistical, and pandering paradigm of ministry that drives so much of the evangelical world.
Moses was a shepherd after the order of Christ as described in 1 Peter 5:1–6, and after the order of Yahweh as celebrated in Psalm 23—perhaps the finest pastoral text in Scripture. Like Yahweh—incarnate in the good Shepherd, Jesus Christ—Moses provided his people what they really needed: nourishment and rest. He guided them in paths of righteousness; he walked with them through valleys of deepest darkness; and he invited them to come and celebrate in the presence of the Lord. May the Lord raise up for his work in our day pastors in the order of Christ our Shepherd. May his servants find inspiration for their ministry in Moses, the humblest man on earth (Num. 12:3), and may they find nourishment in the life-giving Torah he left as a monument to the honor and praise of God.