WHICH MOSES?

AN EXPLORATION OF THE FUNCTION OF MOSES IN

ACTS 7 AND 2 CORINTHIANS 3

by

Colin M. Toffelmire
SID0812018

The Old Testament in the New Testament

PhD 105
Dr. Cynthia Long Westfall
November 3, 2008
 1

In this paper I will compare and contrast the way that Luke and Paul view Moses,

particularly in Acts 7 and 2 Corinthians 3. Concentrating on these two passages I will

demonstrate that Luke and Paul appropriate Moses in different ways and for different

rhetorical purposes. Where Luke sees Moses as a great prophetic figure (indeed the

penultimate prophetic figure), Paul sees Moses instead as a mediator or vessel of the

glory of God.

It is important to justify the use of these passages in particular. Not only do these

passages seem to be generally representative of the use and function of Moses in the

Lukan and Pauline literature, they are also both arguably the most extensive and specific

instances of the appropriation of the person of Moses in each author’s body of work.1 By

1
This is certainly the case in the Pauline literature where the name Μωϋσῆς only appears 10 times
and is generally associated with a direct quotation of the Mosaic Law (note that Quesnel’s count of 9 times
appears to exclude the occurrence in 2 Timothy, Michel Quesnel, “La figure de Moïse en Romains 9-11,”
321). Regarding Quesnel’s views on the parallel quotations of Isaiah and Moses in Romans 10:19-21, his
point in certainly interesting but his conclusion that “[le] personage de Moïse n’endosse alors plus la tenue
du législateur mais plutôt celled du prophète” is overstated considering the limited evidence available,
Quesnel, “La figure de Moïse en Romains 9-11,” 324. Apart from our subject passage, there are three
exceptions to these direct references to the Law in Paul’s work. They are found in Romans 5:14, 1
Corinthians 10:2, and 2 Timothy 3:8. The passages in Romans and 2 Timothy mention Moses in the first
case in association with the Law and in the second case in association with the truth, both of which are
consistent with my argument below concerning the way that Paul sees Moses in 2 Cor. 3. The 1
Corinthians passage is somewhat more difficult due to the slightly strange phrase: εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν
ἐβαπτίσθησαν (10:2) Though I will not treat this passage extensively in this paper I do think that an
argument can be made that here, as in 2 Cor. 3, Moses is not being set in apposition with Jesus but is
instead the bearer of his (that is to say God’s) message. Note that in the imagery Christ is associated with
the rock and not with Moses. Justifying the use of Acts 7 is more difficult. Within the Lukan literature
Μωϋσῆς occurs 29 times. Nine of these occurrences fall within Acts 7 and with two exceptions all of the
rest are explicit or implicit references to the Law of Moses (i.e. the Torah). The two exceptions, Moses’
appearance at Jesus’ transfiguration and Jesus’ reference to Moses’ words when challenged about the
practice of levirate marriage, represent an understanding of Moses that is entirely consistent with my
argument below concerning Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. The difficulty arises, however, when we consider
the nature and function of Stephen’s speech in Acts. Questions regarding the historicity and genre of Acts
in general are beyond the scope of this paper (for helpful discussions of historicity and genre in Acts see
Joel B. Green, “Acts of the Apostles,” 16-18; Martin Dibelius, The Book of Acts, 3-86; and Loveday
Alexander, Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context, 133-163) but it must be noted that regardless of how one
views Acts with regard to historical accuracy, it seems very likely that either in crafting or in relating the
content of the speeches in Acts that Luke would have been interested in honoring the spirit of his speaker.
Thus even if the content of a speech is entirely fabricated (which seems rather unlikely) it is still difficult to
determine whether the opinions expressed by the speaker are Luke’s, or an approximation of that speaker’s
 2

examining these two passages carefully I believe that it is possible to gain a clear picture

of the way that both Luke and Paul understand Moses. Having said this I will at all times

attempt to read each of these two particular passages in concert with the greater Lukan

corpus2 and Pauline corpus respectively.3

Before delving directly into our two passages it is important to explore the way

that Moses appears in other literature of the period. Moses was an undeniably important,

and in some cases monolithic, figure in Second Temple Judaism. In some works from

the period he towers over the rest of humanity, a near divine representative of the God of

the universe. In other works he holds the deeply respected though more mundane

position of a human representative of God and transmitter of the Law.

In many of the works found in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works of the

Second Temple Period Moses is a figure of incredible importance and is given great

honor. In 1 Esdras he appears not merely as the transmitter of the Law but as its receiver

and interpreter. There Moses is expressly referred to as τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τοῦ θεοῦ and

commandments are found ἐν τῇ Μωυσέως βίβλῳ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Esd. 5:48).

“[This] designation carries with it an implied claim to authority as the one to whom God

has entrusted his law.”4 Hafemann also argues for that Moses authority is underlined

implicitly in the Ascension of Isaiah 3:7-10 where the words of Moses are appealed to as

opinions as crafted and expressed by Luke. Therefore it will be necessary to examine some other Lukan
material in concert with Acts 7, though that passage will remain in the foreground.
2
Tempering Luke’s portrayal of Moses in Acts 7 with later material from Acts will be particularly
important. See below.
3
It should also be noted that, though a close reading of each passage is necessary in order to gain
a clear picture of how the figure of Moses is being appropriated, it is not the purpose of this paper to
provide a complete treatment of either passage. There are significant and important exegetical and
theological questions that surround both Acts 7 and 2 Corinthians 33 that I will not even attempt to address
or resolve. At all times the principle purpose behind my readings of the text will be to determine the
attitude of the text and its author3 towards Moses and not to elucidate the final meaning of the passage
itself.
4
Scott J. Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha : A Survey,” 81.
 3

authoritative.5 The Letter of Aristeas goes even further, calling Moses the “Lawgiver”

and suggesting that he was “a wise man and specially endowed by God to understand all

things” (Letter of Aris. 139). Concerning this reference Hafemann makes the incredible

statement that “Moses does not derive his status from the law; the law derives its status

from Moses!”6 The death and burial of Moses found in several works of the period also

underscore Moses’ importance. In the Assumption of Moses as Moses passes his mantle

to Joshua and speaks of his death Joshua responds, saying:

Why dost thou comfort me, (my) lord Moses? And how shall I be comforted in
regard to the bitter word which thou has spoken which has gone forth from thy
mouth, which is full of tears and lamentation, in that thou departest from this
people? (But now) what place shall receive thee? Or what shall be the sign that
marks (thy) sepulcher? Or who shall dare to move thy body from thence as that
of a mere man from place to place? For all men when they die have according to
their age their sepulchers on earth; but thy sepulcher is from the rising of the
setting sun, and from the south to the confines of the north: all the world is thy
sepulcher (11:4-8).

Perhaps even more spectacular is the treatment of Moses in the Animal Apocalypse of 1

Enoch 85-90 where the sheep representing Moses is transformed into a man, thus

indicating his ascension to the highest level of God’s favor, a position only achieved by

Moses and Noah in the Animal Apocalypse.7

In addition to the references to Moses found in the Apocrypha and

Pseudepigrapha, there are also several references to him in the works of Josephus and

Pseudo-Philo. Indeed Lierman suggests that it is these works, along with the Assumption

of Moses, that are most relevant to New Testament studies of Moses because of their

5
Ibid. 87.
6
Ibid. 88.
7
Belleville’s suggestion, Belleville, Reflections of Glory, 27, that Moses’ transformation from
sheep to man is associated to the shining glory of his face is very unlikely, particularly in light of the fact
that Noah is also transformed. The identification of various biblical characters and peoples with animals in
the Animal Apocalypse is based on a hierarchy of election defined by clean/unclean divisions in the Law.
For my full argument see Toffelmire, White Bulls and Wild Goats, 65ff.
 4

Palestinian provenance and the fact that they date to roughly the same period as the

writing of much of the New Testament.8 We find another reference to Moses’ death and

burial in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, which again underscores the standing

of Moses in the minds and hearts of at least some communities during the Greco-Roman

period. In LAB 19:16 God himself “buried him with his own hands on a high place and

in the light of all the world.”9 Josephus appears to consider Moses not merely the

receiver of the Law but also its author who himself determined what was to be included

in the Law. “Since Moyses desired to teach this lesson to his fellow-citizens, he did not

begin the arrangement of the laws with contracts and the rights of people with one

another in a manner similar to others, but he led their thoughts up to God and the

structure of the universe” (Ant. 1.21).10

I have referred to all of these other works written in the same general time period

as the New Testament not in order to suggest that either Luke or Paul depended upon any

of them in particular. In fact when I say “general time period” I am referring to a very

broad range of time indeed, perhaps as much as 300-400 years. What these works do

demonstrate is that when Luke and Paul were composing their works, in and around the

Mediterranean region Moses was an important literary and historical figure. The degree

of his importance certainly varied, as did the precise portrait presented. As I noted above,

in some cases Moses was a great and admirable man of God, the transmitter of the Law,

and in other cases he was of near-divine status. These do not represent the only two

8
John Lierman, The New Testament Moses : Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the
Setting of Jewish Religion, 5.
9
As quoted by Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” 99.
10
It is possible that Josephus is depending on Philo and in any case appears to agree with him. Cf.
Flavius Josephus et al., Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary, 9 n.26. Also note that though
according to Josephus Moses’ death was great and honorable, he did die (Ant. 4.326).
 5

views but can be considered the poles on a spectrum with most works that mentioned

Moses falling somewhere in between. Having said this, as Lierman notes, “[the]

traditions seem to break cleanly into two main streams, one of which saw Moses

principally as a transmitter, and the other as a maker, of the Law.”11

I would suggest that the views of Luke and Paul, represented by the tale of

Stephen’s trial in Acts 7 and Paul’s defense of his calling in 2 Corinthians 3, represent an

example of each of these two “main streams” of thought concerning Moses within the

New Testament. A brief examination of the role of Moses in each of these passages will

help to illustrate how these two authors thought about Moses in relation to themselves

and to Jesus, and therefore how they thought about Moses in a more general sense.

Luke begins his tale about Stephen in Acts 6 with the selection of a group of

deacons meant to give aid to the apostles and help to promote unity between the two

factions of the early church (Acts 6:1-7). The dispute is settled and then Luke transitions

into the tale of Stephen’s ministry, arrest, and trial. Though I mention Stephen’s ministry

the fact that Luke gives mention to it in but a single verse that the trial and Stephen’s

speech at the trial are what matters most to Luke and to the progression of his story. This

is not to say that Stephen’s ministry was unimportant, or that Luke did not value him. As

Croatto notes “among the seven deacons…Luke is interested only in the first two,

Stephen and Philip. Both of them act in the same way the apostles do, as ministers of the

Word (diakonia tou logou).”12

The push past Stephen’s ministry and toward the arrest and trial help to achieve at

least one narratival purpose for Luke, which is to drive the action of the story out from

11
Lierman, New Testament Moses, 172.
12
J. Severino Croatto, “Jesus, Prophet like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher like Moses in Luke-Acts,”
462.
 6

Jerusalem and into the surrounding Gentile world.13 It is also likely that this story

provides an opportunity for Luke to articulate, to some degree at least, the connection

(and disparity) between the faith of the early Christians and that of the Jews. A statement

like this requires some qualification. Without going into all of the problems that

surround narratology and literary criticism and the Bible I should mention briefly at least

that I see Stephen first as a strongly positive character who is being held up by the

narrator as an example of a true servant of Christ.14 It does not follow from this,

however, that all of Stephen’s words can be placed in the mouth of Luke as well. See my

comments below on the contextual placement of Stephen’s speech within the Lucan

corpus. As the trial begins and Stephen speaks the reader is drawn immediately in to

Stephen’s attempt to provide theological and historical commentary on the relationship

between the early church and the Jews, essentially arguing that Jesus is the culmination

of God’s relationship with “our ancestors” (οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν) (7:45), and that they (the

Jews) have rejected Jesus just as those ancestors rejected God’s earlier messengers.

Stephen thereby demonstrates that this new faith is not, in fact, new but is instead a

culmination of the faith of Abraham.15 Stephen is then, not surprisingly, stoned.16

13
See the dispersion of the Christians into Judea and Samaria in 8:1 and the tale of Philip in 8:4ff.
14
For a very brief and easily understood introduction to narrative criticism and it’s applicability to
biblical studies see R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, 15ff.
For ease of use and for clarity I will refer to Stephen when discussing the character and his actions within
the narrative, and to Luke when discussing the narrator and the author of the text.
15
Barrett suggests that Luke is also saying that this new faith “finally disintegrates the
institutionalism that had for so long been the people’s temptation” Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, v 1, 337.
16
Bruce notes that though “[this] speech is commonly called Stephen’s defense, or apology…it is
obviously not a speech for the defense in the forensic sense of the term.”F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 130.
Whether this is merely an historical account presented faithfully by Luke or a story fabricated to meet his
purposes (or some combination of the two, which seems more likely) it seems very likely that Stephen’s
speech was not intended as an attempt to be acquitted but as an opportunity to relate the life and rejection
of Jesus to the heroes of the Jewish people. Donaldson extends this line of argumentation, suggesting that
"Stephen's attack seems to be against Jerusalem-centred religion and hence, by inference, against the
authority of the Torah- and temple-oriented movements of the Pharisees and Sadducees, movements which
 7

How, then, does Moses enter into Stephen’s account? As I have noted already the

purpose of Stephen’s summary of the history of Israel is to draw parallels between the

great heroes of the Jewish people and the life and rejection of Christ (7:51-53). Moses is

one of the heroes, along with Abraham and Joseph, whose tale is told. Not only this, it

would also appear that Moses’ tale is central to Stephen’s history. Abraham is, of course,

the beginning. He is upheld as a picture of faith, as the faithful servant who enabled the

story to begin. Apart from his faith and obedience (7:4-5), however, little is said of

Abraham. The same is true of Joseph. His story is told but it gives the impression, not

that Joseph is himself being praised, but that it is simply necessary to tell the story of

Joseph and the emigration of Jacob’s family to Egypt in order to bridge the story from

Abraham to Moses and the Exodus. The vital importance of Moses to the story is

underlined as the transition is made from Joseph’s time to Moses’ time in v. 17. “But as

the time drew near for the fulfillment of the promise that God had made to Abraham”

indicates that the one through whom the promise would be fulfilled is about to enter the

story.17

Within Stephen’s history only Moses is described in specific terms. He is called

“ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ,” an expression used only twice in the New Testament and applied both

times to Moses (cf. Heb. 23). While the NRSV translates the word “beautiful” (this is

how it is used in the LXX), it may also carry the sense “pleasing” or “acceptable,”

Stephen aligns with earlier examples of rebellion against God's will.” Terence L. Donaldson, “Moses
Typology and the Sectarian Nature of Early Christian Anti-Judaism : A Study in Acts 7,” 31.
17
Note that the account of Moses’ life presented in Acts 7 does not correspond precisely to the
MT or to the LXX account. This is, in fact, true of the entire history that Stephen presents. For a detailed
breakdown of agreement with the ancient Old Testament manuscripts see Barrett’s incredibly detailed verse
by verse comments, Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, v 1, 340ff”. See also Donaldson, “Moses Typology,” 28,
with regard to source material.
 8

particularly in combination with τῷ θεῷ.18 Moses was also “ἐπαιδεύθη…[ἐν] πάσῃ σοφίᾳ

Αἰγυπτίων, ἦν δὲ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις αὐτοῦ” (7:22). These early compliments,

applied to Moses even before the real core of the story, indicate that Luke had a very high

regard for Moses. They may even indicate that Luke thought of Moses as a unique and

gifted person, one whose superiority was not only a product of his interaction with God.19

The next part of the action, far from being a mere bridge between Egypt and

Sinai, is of vital importance to Luke and to the final point of Stephen’s speech. It is in

vv. 23-29 that Moses returns to his people, attempts to help them, and is rejected. Verse

25 is a fascinating editorial insertion on the part of Luke. The idea that Moses considered

himself the saviour of the Hebrew people when he killed the Egyptian is not found in

either the MT or the LXX text. Again we can see that before Moses even arrives at Sinai

and encounters God, Luke thinks of him as the chosen saviour or the people of Israel.20

Moses then goes away21 and after living in Midian 40 years has his encounter

with God at Sinai and receives his commission to return to Egypt. There are several

details of Stephen’s recounting of the Exodus itself that are of importance in our attempt

to understand Luke’s attitude towards Moses.

First it is interesting that it is Moses who leads the Israelites out of Egypt after he

had done great wonders there and at the Red Sea. In the LXX and the MT, before each

plague Moses is instructed to go to Pharaoh and warn him about the upcoming plague. In

18
BADG, 117.
19
It is essentially impossible to know if Luke is drawing upon some other particular tradition in
his understanding of Moses. Barrett has drawn a connection between Luke’s Moses and Moses as he is
found in both Philo and Ezekiel’s Exagoge (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, v 1, 338) and Lierman also refers
to Luke’s Moses in Luke 20:37 as “nearly Philonic” (Lierman, New Testament Moses,: 157), but these are
thematic parallels only.
20
Barrett also suggests that the use of “σωτηρίαν” here may also indicate a parallel to Jesus.
Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, v 1, 358.
21
Not because he was afraid of Pharaoh as in Ex. 2 but because he has been rejected.
 9

each instance in the LXX he is told to use the formula “Τάδε λέγει κύριος” (Thus says the

Lord) while in the MT the formulaic phrase “hw@hy% rm1a2 hKo” (also Thus says the Lord)

is used. It is made exceedingly clear throughout the Exodus narrative that it is the Lord

who is responsible for the miracles and the plagues. Regardless of whether Luke has

consciously adjusted his story or he is simply making use of another traditional way of

telling the Exodus tale, it is clear that Moses has here been elevated far beyond his role in

the textual accounts of the original story as we have them. Second in v. 39 the people of

Israel do not reject God or the Law but Moses (ᾧ for which the clear antecedent is οὗτός

in v.38 and consequently ὁ Μωϋσῆς in v. 37). It is Moses the people will not obey and

not God in particular.

Thirdly, and most importantly, in v. 35 Stephen reminds his audience that the

rejected Moses returns now with God’s blessing as “ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν.” Though it

may seem that Luke could hardly draw the line between Moses and Jesus more clearly

than this, he does just that in v. 37. Here the words of Moses from Deuteronomy 18:15

are drawn from their context and inserted into the Exodus narrative.22 Particularly when

read against the backdrop of Peter’s speech in Acts 3 (there this same quotation is

inserted and the connection between Jesus and the prophet who is to come is explicit) it is

impossible to misunderstand Luke here; Jesus is the great prophet, and the Jews have

rejected him as the Israelites rejected Moses.

From this final bit of information in vv. 35 and 37 it is possible to construct the

most powerful evidence for Luke’s high view of Moses. This is accomplished by

22
Barrett sees this as the only full “Lucan insertion” in the speech. Whether or not this is the case
(see n. 1 above regarding the historicity and genre of Acts generally) Barrett is certainly correct to write
that the use of Deut. here “points to the coming of a new Moses, the Righteous One of v.52.” Barrett, Acts
of the Apostles, v 1, 338.
 10

working backwards through the rhetorical logic of including Moses in the story. His

rhetorical logic flows like this: 1) by building Moses up (vv. 20-25), 2) then noting his

rejection (vv. 26-29), 3) then building Moses up again (vv. 30-33), 4) and identifying him

explicitly with the Lord (v. 34), 5) then noting the original rejection (v. 35), 6) building

Moses up by ascribing miracles to him, 7) associating his now obvious prophetic status

implicitly with Jesus, 8) and then finally delivering the final and most important rejection

of Moses, which is also an implicit rejection of God (made clear by the fact that God

turns away from the people). Stephen refers to Moses highlighting both his exalted status

as Israel’s greatest hero, and also the fact that this great hero was once rejected, in order

to associate him as closely as possible with Jesus. When this logic is inverted we realize

that Moses is being associated with Jesus. Not only is Jesus a prophet in the line of

Moses, Moses is a prophet of such greatness that he prefigures the Messiah himself. It is

this point above all others that emphasizes the very great status of Moses in Luke’s

thought. It is necessary at this point to temper this account of Moses with some later

references to Moses and the Mosaic Law in Acts. Of particular concern are Acts 15 and

Acts 21 which both provide accounts of Paul’s ministry and particularly his conflicts with

Jewish Christians over the Law.

In Acts 15 Paul is clearly Luke’s protagonist in his endeavors to release new

Gentile believers from strict adherence to the Law. This being said it is notable that even

here Moses is not seen as insignificant. Indeed James says that he has been preached

universally in the synagogues and that some aspects of the Mosaic Law cannot be set

aside even for Gentile believers (v 21).23 It is notable, however, that here we find Paul’s

23
As Dibelius has noted, with regard to “context and meaning [this] is one of the most difficult
verses in the New Testament,” Acts, 137. Dibelius suggests that v. 21 means that “Moses also is
 11

argument that the Law is “a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to

bear” (10) and that salvation is through the grace of Christ alone (11) being shown in a

strongly positive light. If Luke did indeed completely accept Stephen’s understanding of

Moses as penultimate prophet then this sympathetic account of Paul’s argument against

Moses and the Mosaic Law seems decidedly out of place.

Again, however, it is necessary to contextualize this account within Luke’s

greater work. Note the very strongly positive portrayal of Moses in Luke’s account of the

transfiguration (Luke 9:28ff). There certainly Moses holds the place of penultimate

prophet. But the apparent inconsistency found between Luke 9 and Acts 7 on the one

hand, and Acts 15 on the other must also be read in light of Luke’s later accounts

including Moses, particularly in Acts 21.

In the account of Paul’s nazarite vow we have what appears to be an apology for

Paul. Here Luke portrays Paul as a faithful Jew and follower of the Mosaic Law. James

warns Paul that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem “have been told about you that you

teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses” (21). Obviously from

Luke’s account we know that Paul has been teaching no such thing. Luke’s aside in v.

29, “ὃν ἐνόμιζον ὅτι εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν εἰσήγαγεν ὁ Παῦλος,” underlines the defense of Paul,

indicating that the Jews have simply assumed that Paul brought Trophimus into the

Temple though from Luke’s point of view he clearly did not do so. This defense of Paul

proclaimed to the world without our [that is, the disciples’] assistance,” Acts, 137. Calvin suggests that
here James “teacheth that it cannot be that ceremonies can be abolished so quickly, as it were, at the first
dash; because the Jews had now a long time been acquainted with the doctrine of the law, and Moses had
his preachers; therefore, it stood them upon to redeem concord for a short time, until such time as the
liberty gotten by Christ might, by little and little, appear more plainly” Acts of the Apostles v.2, 73. Barrett
presents three possible options that may be summarized as: 1. Let the Gentiles be, Moses has enough
preachers, 2. Moses is so widely followed that the Gentiles must take some note of him and the law, and 3.
Amos’ prophecy (vv. 15-18) is fulfilled in the many preachers of the law, Acts of the Apostles, 737. Either
Barrett’s 1 or 2 seems perfectly functional in this context, and perhaps some combination of both is
intended (so Barrett suggests).
 12

is likely one of the reasons for the inclusion of this particular account. Paul is shown here

as a faithful Jew who obeys the Law of Moses (which, as Acts 7 shows, teaches that

Jesus is the Christ), over against these Jews who have falsely accused him. That this

theme is important to Luke demonstrates that he does maintain a strong respect for Moses

and the Mosaic Law, though in light of Acts 15 it is likely that this respect does not go so

far as that shown by Stephen in Acts 7.

Luke’s attitude toward Moses, then, does reflect to a significant degree the

attitude of Stephen. He clearly sees Moses as a prophetic figure, likely the penultimate

prophet, and he has no difficulty recounting Stephen’s suggestion that Jesus is a prophet

in the line of Moses. That being said, Luke also clearly demonstrates in the later chapters

of Acts that he is sympathetic to Paul’s grace-centered gospel. This must also, however,

be evaluated in light of Luke’s portrayal of Paul as a “good Jew” in Acts 21, which may

be an attempt to make Paul more acceptable to Jewish readers. Luke sees Moses as a

prophet to be sure, but a prophet who as been surpassed by Christ, as Paul’s message

clearly demonstrates.

Though Paul certainly holds Moses in high esteem and never speaks a word

against Moses, Paul does not see Moses as the giver of the Law but as its receiver. In

Paul’s thinking, exemplified by his discussion of calling and reflected glory in 2

Corinthians 3, Moses is a servant whose glory is only a reflection of that much greater

and more surpassing glory that is God’s.24

24
Though I have already alluded to the complications involved with a discussion of 2 Corinthians
3 above, a brief reminder here may be helpful. The complicated imagery and theology of this part of Paul’s
Corinthian correspondence has been the subject of countless commentaries, articles, and monographs.
Regarding the particularly difficult passage in chapter 3 Hafemann writes, “[but] on the meaning and
purpose of 3:7-18 itself, W.C. Van Unnik is still correct over 30 years later that ‘there is hardly a single
point on which expositors agree.’”24 It is not my intent to revisit the complex discussions of Paul’s
 13

Lierman notes that in post-Second Temple Judaism, the reverence and honor

afforded to Moses (like what has been observed above in Luke’s work) begins to

diminish somewhat. His status migrates from “lawmaker” to “lawgiver,” which is to say,

to mediator.25 Belleville also notes this trajectory in Paul.26 Though it is certainly too

much to say that Paul’s attitude is consistent with the writings of Rabbis that post-date

him by so much, it is interesting to note that the tendency away from the glorification of

Moses may already have been present in Paul’s day.

With regard to the overall purpose of 2 Corinthians 3:1-6 (as well as the verses

that precede this section) it is generally held that Paul is here writing a defense of his own

calling, or of his sufficiency as an apostle.27 There appear to have been others writing

letters to the Corinthians recommending themselves (3:1) and so Paul reminds his distant

flock that they are his letter and the only commendation that he needs to demonstrate his

worth as an apostle (3:2-3). Not only is the church at Corinth his personal letter of

commendation but, more importantly, it is an “ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ” and written with

“πνεύματι θεοῦ ζῶντος.” This is to say that Paul’s commendation of himself, or perhaps

more accurately his freedom from the need for commendation, is derived ultimately from

God’s work in his ministry. His competence (ἱκανότης) comes from God, or depends on

God, and not on human recommendations.

comparison between the old and new covenants, nor his understanding of the Law in relation to Moses’
fading glory. Instead of wandering into that particular interpretive labyrinth I will confine my observations
to Paul’s attitude towards Moses, and in particular his understanding of his call and ministry in relation to
that of Moses.
25
Lierman, New Testament Moses, 148.
26
Belleville, Reflections of Glory, 71.
27
Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 256, Thrall, Second Epistle of the Corinthians, 217,
Rudolf Karl Bultmann and Erich Dinkler, TheSsecond Letter to the Corinthians, 71, as well as Theodoret of
Cyr, Didymus the Blind, Ambrosiaster, and Chrysostom as found in Gerald Lewis Bray, 1-2 Corinthians,
212.
 14

Paul goes on from this initial defense of his call to draw comparisons between his

calling and message, and the calling and message of Moses.28 He begins by contrasting

the “ministry of death” with the “ministry of the Spirit,” and aligns the former with

Moses while implicitly situating himself in the later (3:4-8). It should be noted that Paul

is not necessarily setting himself up against Moses in this parallel. It would be more

accurate to think of the two apostolic figures, Paul and Moses, as parallel to one another

and not in opposition to one another. Paul may be making qualitative comments

regarding the ministry to which Moses was called, but it does not follow that he is

thereby disparaging Moses himself.

Indeed, when we move deeper into the argument we see that the “ministry of

death” came in glory (3:7). It came in such glory, in fact, that “the people of Israel could

not gaze at Moses’ face” (3:7). In this verse it is vitally important to underline the fact

that the glory does not belong to Moses. It is not his glory; he is only the agent that

reflects it. The glory is associated with the “ministry of death.” And the greater glory

that is associated with “the ministry of the Spirit,” is also not Paul’s glory. The implicit

parallel being drawn here is that inasmuch as Moses reflected the previous glory, so also

Paul reflects the new glory. The equation here is relatively simple: Moses=Paul.29 Both

Moses and Paul (or any faithful believer) are fulfilling a kind of apostolic office as

bearers of glory.

28
By calling I mean not simply the initial call to preach or serve but the continuation of that office
as well, for both Paul and Moses.
29
In fact this is something of an oversimplification of the equation. Note Paul’s words in 3:18,
“ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ.” Here it is not simply Paul’s face that is unveiled, but the
face of every believer. Particularly Paul’s use of πάντες seems to indicate that the glory of God is reflected
in all of his followers, whether that be Paul, Timothy, the Corinthian church, or other believers anywhere.
 15

Again in vv. 12:18, though Moses’ glory is veiled, and that veiling is seen as

negative, neither the glory nor Moses himself are negative per se.30 It is simply that the

veil remains because “only in Christ is it set aside” (3:14). Paul himself is a passive

agent of this glory and not its source (v. 18). Thrall is therefore correct in one respect

when she writes that “Paul is arguing that if Moses’s ministry was glorious, so must his

be. He is arguing for his own endowment with doxa as such, although he also wishes to

indicate that his glory is superior to that of Moses.”31 She does not, however, draw the

important distinction between possessing and reflecting that glory. It would be

inconsistent with the character of the rest of the epistle for Paul to claim this glory as his

own (cf. 3:18, 4:5, 5:18ff).

Hafemann describes Paul’s understanding of his calling better when he writes:

Paul’s reference to his lack of self-sufficiency and the source of his sufficiency in
God in 3:4f clearly picks up and draws out the logical conclusion implied in the
prior discussion of his apostolic status in 1 Cor. 15:9-11. In himself, Paul is not
‘sufficient’ (ἱκανὸς) to be an apostle because of his past (1 Cor. 15:9).
Nevertheless, Paul is sufficient to be an apostle (2:16), but his ‘sufficiency’
(ἱκανότης) is ‘from God’ (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) (3:4f.).32

Thus, when Paul sets himself in apposition with Moses he is demonstrating that his

calling as an apostle is like the calling of Moses as the lawgiver.

It should be possible, therefore, to deduce Paul’s understanding (to some degree at

least) of the nature of Moses’ office by briefly examining how Paul sees his own office.

Indeed there is no need even to leave the immediate context of this epistle to demonstrate

how Paul saw his office in relation to the glory of God. In 4:5-7 we find Paul’s famous

pronouncement on this very subject. Paul does not proclaim himself but Christ (5). He

30
Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 270.
31
Thrall, Second Epistle of the Corinthians, 240.
32
Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 98-99.
 16

makes this even more explicit in v. 7 writing “ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ

καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν.” He goes on in 5:20 to write “ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν.” He

clearly does not think of himself as the bearer of God’s glory but as its vessel.

Therefore by once again tracing the rhetorical logic backwards it becomes evident

that Paul does not think of Moses as the writer of the Law but as its transmitter. Moses

reflected the glory of the message but he did not create that glory. In Paul’s conception

Moses was a messenger.

This brief comparison between Acts 7 and 2 Corinthians 3 has drawn out

significant but nuanced distinctions between the way that Luke understood and thought

about Moses and the way that Paul understood and thought about Moses. Where Luke

presented Moses as a great prophetic figure, Paul saw a person entrusted with a

magnificent message. Where Luke thought of Moses as a worker of great miracles and as

a man of great stature, Paul thought of Moses as a servant of God much like himself.

There has been some acknowledgement that Luke and Paul represent differing

streams of thought in the New Testament concerning Moses.33 This study provides some

evidence to further that view, but also points to one very strong note of similarity

between the Lucan and Pauline understanding of Moses. In both cases it is vital to

underline the fact that the greatness of Moses, or the greatness of his message, has been

superceded by Christ.

My goal at the outset was to demonstrate that an examination of the rhetorical

function of the Moses character in Acts 7 and 2 Corinthians 3, presented within the

greater context of each author’s body of work, would shed light on the question of the

way that Luke and Paul saw Moses. Through careful reading a picture of Moses as epic
33
For instance see Lierman, New Testament Moses, 158 and 172.
 17

hero and penultimate prophet who has been superceded by Christ has emerged in the

work of Luke. In the work of Paul Moses fills a more sedate role as a messenger, like

Paul, entrusted with a sacred message. The glory of that message, however, has been

superceded by the glory of Christ. These somewhat divergent pictures demonstrate that

there was a difference of emphasis between Luke and Paul concerning the person and

work of Moses and his relationship to the Jewish people and to the Law.
 18

Bibliography:

Alexander, Loveday C.A. Acts in Its Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of
the Apostles. Library of New Testament Studies, 298. London; T&T Clark,
2005.

Barrett, Charles K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, v
1: Preliminary Introduction and Commentary on Acts 1-14. ICC Series.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.

________. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, v 2:

Introduction and Commentary on Acts 15-28. ICC Series. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1998.

Belleville, Linda L. Reflections of Glory: Paul's Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa

Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3:1-18. Journal for the study of the New Testament
Supplement. Sheffield; Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

Bray, Gerald Lewis. 1-2 Corinthians. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New
Testament 7. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Bruce, F. F. The Book of Acts. Rev. ed. NICNT Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Bultmann, Rudolf Karl, and Erich Dinkler. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. 1st
English language ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985.

Calvin, John. Commentary Upon The Acts of the Apostles, vol 2. Trans. Christopher
Fethersone. Ed. Henry Beveridge. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844.

Croatto, J. Severino. “Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher like Moses in
Luke-Acts.” JBL 124 3 (2005): 451-465.

Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design.

Philadelphia: Fortress Pr, 1983.

Dibelius, Martin. The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology. Ed. K.C. Hanson.
Minneapolis; Fortress Press, 2004.

Donaldson, Terence L. “Moses Typology and the Sectarian Nature of Early Christian
Anti-Judaism : A Study in Acts 7.” JSNT 12 (1981): 27-52.

Dunn, James D. G. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans,
2001.

Green, Joel B. “Acts of the Apostles,” Pp. 16-32 in The IVP Dictionary of the New
Testament. Ed. Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 2004.
 19

Hafemann, Scott J. “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha : A Survey.” JSP 7

(1990): 79-104.

———. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel : The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the
Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1996.

Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek
Text. NIGTC Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2005.

Josephus, Flavius, Steve Mason, Louis H. Feldman, Christopher Begg, and John M. G.
Barclay. Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary. Leiden ; Boston: Brill,
2000.

Lierman, John. The New Testament Moses : Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in
the Setting of Jewish Religion. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament. 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Quesnel, Michel. “La figure de Moïse en Romains 9-11.” NTS 49 3 (2003): 321-335.

Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

Thrall, Margaret E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of the
Corinthians. 2 vols. ICC Series. London ; New York: T&T Clark International,
2004.