OT in the NT

Mike,

I believe that both Exodus and the NT give accurate pictures of Moses. Moses started out "...as a sniveling, weak, wimpy, old man." Correct, then God started to work in his life and began to change him. The NT pictures Moses, after God had changed him into a mature, holy, believer.

"I need to understand that what I thought was holy and righteous might need to change." No, I think your understanding is correct.

In John 13:18 Jesus quotes Psalm 41:9. The context in John 13:18 is a reference to Judas. Moses, in Psalms 41:9, is referring to a friend who betrayed him, not Judas. Can you explain the apparent contradiction?

Gill,


Hi Gill,
I was thinking of these verses: Hebrews 11:24-27 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible.

They make it appear that all through Moses life he was a man of faith. But when Moses was in Egypt the first time and when he ran away, the Exodus passage makes it appear that he was fleeing, while here it makes it look like he was living as a Jew while being raised in Pharaoh's house. Anyway, on first glance it appears that the two texts differ. But further reading and thinking brings us to pretty much what you said. The confusion is especially true if you take verse 27 as being when Moses left Egypt the first time. The second time, Pharaoh wasn't angry with him. On the other hand he was plenty angry at various times during the spiritual war that allowed Israel to leave and then again after they left and were pursued by the army.

Psalm 41:9 is part of Psalm 49, obviously, and Psalm 49 was written by David (I don't know why you said Moses) who was the leader of Israel. I take all the Psalms and the OT as a whole to be representative of Israel or about Israel. Sometimes it is about individuals, teaching us about how God deals with individuals. And sometimes as a nation, teaching us how God deals with nations. But in all of it Israel is being a type of Christ, the savior of the world. And then Christ came and was the anti-type of all that went before him.

So, in this particular text, Jesus referred it to himself because it was being written about David at the time, but also about the one who would come and be the leader of his people later. Jesus was the leader of the people of God, in a more important way than David was the leader of the people of God and as Israel as a nation was the people of God. So, Jesus assumes, as do all the NT writers, that David was talking about himself and the one who would supersede all that came after David.

Then, in verse nine Jesus applies it all to Judas. The question comes up then, what do we do with verse four? I believe that when Jesus came to be a man he came to become us as our covenant head. This is why he was baptized. In becoming our head he took on our sins on himself and so this verse applies to Jesus as our head, our representative. He took our sin and it was this sin that separated him from the father on the cross.

I think this fits the overall context of the Bible and it is the only understanding that I've heard that makes sense.

Pastor Lawyer