Jesus’s Death as the New Exodus
When comparing Jesus to OT figures, too many times the cross is viewed as an unintentional minor note. The reasons for this are varied. Some rightly assume that the cross is a unique event in Jesus’s life, unrepeatable and distinctive. Others argue that the narration slows during the passion and does not permit the creative storytelling that the early narratives afford. In other words, as the details of the story become more prominent, the connections with the OT fall by the wayside. Yet even though the cross is a unique event, Matthew still portrays the last days of Jesus as a fulfillment of the Scriptures.49 Indeed, it would seem odd if he painted only Jesus’s life in this way and not his death.
But how does Jesus’s death integrate with the Mosaic traditions? In Jesus’s death he is portrayed as the priestly Moses, leading the people on their new exodus. There is a typological parallel between the historical exodus and the messianic salvation that Christ accomplishes on the cross.50 The clearest place to see the new-exodus theme in Jesus’s death is the Last Supper. Here Jesus synchronizes his coming crucifixion in light of the redemption from Egypt. One might object that the Last Supper is quite a bit before Jesus’s death, but it is also true that in all of the Gospels, the Last Supper is where the death of Jesus is interpreted. Each Gospel writer leaves the description of Jesus’s death quite bare. Perhaps this is because they want Jesus’s own words about his death at the Supper to provide the interpretation and convey the significance of the event. While the imagery gives hints of the significance of Jesus’s death, it is safe to say that the clearest explanation of Jesus’s death occurs at the Last Supper.
The Meal, Blood, and Covenant
Three things should be pointed out about the Last Supper that tie closely to the ministry of Moses and point to the cross as a symbol for the new exodus: (1) the Last Supper and its relationship to the Passover meal, (2) the specific use of blood and bread, and (3) the explicit mention of covenant. For Jews, the exodus and the Passover meal are twin siblings. The exodus signifies the key moment of redemption in the OT. Redemption from Egypt was political, spiritual, economic, social, and linked tightly to this meal.
Matthew is explicit in his presentation of the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Matthew 26:17–19 says, “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?’ He said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.”’ And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.” Jesus sends his disciples to prepare to “eat” the Passover. This is a meal and has history and symbolism woven into every part of it. Ritual meals in the ANE are times of remembrance, celebration, community, and worship.51 The Passover meal aligns nicely with these points, for this specific dining experience celebrates Israel’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt. Thus, in eating the meal they are to remember their dependence on God, Yahweh’s provision for them, and participate in joyful worship of Yahweh’s goodness. The meal is to be a time when they recall what God did for them in Egypt.
The basic elements of the meal are described in Exod. 12: the Passover lamb (pesach), bitter herbs (maror), and unleavened bread (matzah).52 The point is that the food symbolizes an event in history. In the Passover, Israel is to remember their exodus from Egypt; in the Last Supper, Jesus calls his people to realize that he is leading them on a new exodus. The relevant elements are not the lamb or the bitter herbs but the bread and the wine. Jesus thus reinterprets the Passover in relation to his own impending death. This was an old meal, but an old meal now transformed. The scribe is bringing out treasures both new and old.
Second, not only the meal but also the blood and bread point to the Mosaic covenant. Jesus acts as the paterfamilias who recounts the story of the exodus and explains to the family why they perform the ritual. As the head of the company, Jesus takes the bread and the wine and explains to them the significance.
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matt. 26:26–29)
The words “This is my blood of the covenant” appear to echo Exod. 24:8. In Exod. 24 Moses comes down from the mountain and ratifies the covenant between the Lord and the people by sprinkling blood on them. Moses says about the blood, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:8). That Jesus’s blood is poured out for many indicates that his death is a covenant sacrifice for the atonement of sins. As the blood of animals was “poured out” (Lev. 4:7; 18, 25, 30, 34), so the blood of Jesus represents a sacrifice for the atonement of sins. In addition, as Jesus celebrates the Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represent the twelve tribes of Israel, so too Moses offers the blood of the covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel, symbolically represented by “twelve pillars” around the altar (Exod. 24:4).
In the original Passover, blood was smeared on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses (Exod. 12:7). The blood was to be a sign for them. When Yahweh saw the blood, he would pass over the house, and no plague would befall them. The significance of the covenant of blood is revealed in its fullest clarity and beauty in these two feasts. The Passover meal is now a covenant meal through Jesus’s reenactment.
Brant Pitre also directs our attention to the bread.53 The bread of the Presence is mentioned in the same section as the blood. In Exod. 25:30 Moses is instructed to put the bread of the Presence on the table before Yahweh’s face always. This bread functioned as a symbol of the heavenly banquet, where Moses and the elders beheld the God of Israel while they ate and drank in Exod. 24 (esp. v. 10). As Pitre notes, this has implications for the connection between the bread and the blood: “The link between the bread and the presence and the blood of the covenant is significant: it is the covenant sacrifice at the foot of the mountain that enables Moses and the elders to ascend into God’s presence and celebrate the heavenly banquet with him at the summit of the mountain.”54 The blood paves the way for the bread of Presence, where they see the face of God. In the same way Jesus is telling his disciples to drink of his blood and eat of the bread so that they may enjoy the new-covenant blessing of being in the presence of God.
Third, when Jesus speaks of establishing a new covenant (Matt. 26:28), he echoes prophetic oracles that speak to a future covenant. Zechariah 9 says, “Because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit” (9:11–13). Ezekiel asserts that Yahweh will “establish . . . an everlasting covenant” with Israel (16:59–63). Jeremiah connects the new covenant with the forgiveness of sins (31:31–34). Interestingly, Jeremiah also associates the new covenant with the covenant mediated by Moses at Mount Sinai (31:31–32). In each of these texts the new covenant accompanies the restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. Zechariah speaks of God’s plan to restore both Judah and Ephraim (9:13). Ezekiel speaks of a covenant being established with Jerusalem, Samaria, and even Sodom (16:61). Jeremiah says the new covenant is made with Israel and Judah (31:31). In the same way, when Jesus partakes of the Last Supper, he does so with his disciples (Matt. 26:17).
Exodus and Passover
Matthew follows his rabbi in his interpretation of the exodus, the Passover meal, and Jesus’s death. When Jesus celebrates the Passover meal with his disciples, he reinterprets Scripture in light of current events. He does not deny the meaning of the Passover or the exodus; he clarifies their meaning. But now the meaning is mediated through Jesus’s actions, and these actions are mediated to us by Matthew. The new
context of Jesus’s own death enables Jesus to read the tradition of the Passover in a different way. The redemption from Egypt provides the conceptual framework by which to understand Israel’s current divine deliverance. In the same respect, the present deliverance reinterprets the significance of the events in the exodus—treasures new and old.
Matthew was sitting in the room with Jesus when all this took place. As a good Jewish man, he had all the right associations with this meal and grew up celebrating it. He knew what the meal, blood, and bread symbolized, and he knew the meal was a part of their covenant tradition. The combination of these three factors—a meal, the food, and the covenant—provokes Michael Barber to say, “That all four accounts have Jesus linking his blood with the motif of covenant while celebrating a meal mirrors not only Moses’ words concerning the ‘blood of the covenant’ but also the fact that the ceremony in Exod. 24 culminates in a sacred feast (cf. Exod. 24:8–11). These points of contact are too strong and numerous to be written off as mere coincidence.”55
Yet it was probably not till after Jesus’s death that Matthew realized the true significance of Jesus’s act. Matthew was probably confused when Jesus compared wine to blood. In the old covenant the blood of animals was not to be consumed, but now his rabbi told him the blood was to be ingested. That this blood is now to be ingested—not the blood of animals but the blood of Jesus—indicates that the covenant of blood has reached its fulfillment. God now not only passes over them and spares their firstborn, but he also forgives their sins with the blood of the new lamb. Moses does not lay down his life for his followers, but Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. Moses goes through the wilderness with the people but dies before he enters the promised land, while Jesus conquers in the wilderness. Jesus is like Moses, but superior to him in every respect. Matthew learned the importance of this meal by associating it with the Passover and thinking about how Jesus fulfilled all that Israel was hoping for. Matthew is now the scribe, teaching us how to interpret not only Jesus’s life but also his death, because his teacher taught him what it means.56
The Last Supper thus points backward to the old covenant and the redemption from Egypt and forward to what is about to be accomplished by Jesus and the wedding feast to come. This scene confirms Moses as a main figure in Matthew’s typology. For when Matthew reaches for a symbolic action that explains Jesus’s death, he latches onto a meal that speaks of the exodus. The image with which Matthew interprets Jesus’s death is the climactic event of Moses’s life. Redemption from Egypt is a shadow; the reality is enacted through a meal and a death. But Jesus’s death is also not like Moses’s. Moses dies on a mountain, unable to enter the land. Jesus is raised to life and meets with the disciples on a mountain, looking out over the land.
A Leader Who Commissions His People
The Gospel of Matthew closes with Jesus on a mountain. Otto Michel says Matt. 28:18–20 is the key to understanding the whole book; others have likewise noticed how all the themes of Matthew run through this text.57 Jesus states that all authority on heaven and earth has been given to him. He commands his followers to go and make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them and then promises them he will be with them always.
Similar to the last scene of Jesus, the last scene of Moses depicts him on top of a mountain, looking out over the land. Deuteronomy 34:1–4 describes the scene:
Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, the Negeb, and the Plain, that is, the Valley of Jericho the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. And the LORD said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.”
As Moses looks out over the whole land and thinks of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so too Jesus looks out over the whole land and knows that the promise of the new covenant is completed in him. He promises his followers that he will be with them—in contrast to Moses, who dies on the mountain. Jesus also commands them to go and make disciples of all nations. This is based on the authority that has been given to him. In both of these phrases, spatial ideas are present. Jesus has authority over all space—heaven and earth—and because of this, he sends his disciples forth into every space, all nations. He wants their bodies to fill the land with blessings as Yahweh promised to Abraham.
The two steps to making disciples in the verse are baptizing and teaching. As Israel was baptized in the sea and taught by Moses, so the disciples’ commission is to reprise the history of Israel. Baptism is a going through the water. Jesus also went through the water, and he wants his followers to follow him in this sacramental act. He went through the water because Israel also passed through the water in the exodus led by Moses. Matthew the scribe predictably also emphasizes teaching because he sat at the feet of his rabbi, and his rabbi taught him like Moses taught Israel. Jesus wants his followers to go out and imitate their messiah, in this way spreading his law so that people will be transfigured coram deo. At the end, on the mountain, Matthew lays out two commands that mirror Moses’s ministry.
Not only does Jesus mirror Moses in the spatial outlook, but how Jesus commissions his successors in light of the task before them is also similar. Moses commissions Joshua at the end of his life and promises him that Yahweh will be with him, never to leave him or forsake him: “Then Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel, ‘Be strong and courageous, for you shall go with this people into the land that the LORD has sworn to their fathers to give them, and you shall put them in possession of it. It is the LORD who goes before you. He will be with you; he will not leave you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed’” (Deut. 31:7–8). At the beginning of Joshua, Yahweh speaks to Joshua and promises that every place the sole of his foot touches will be given to him (Josh. 1:3). As the chosen successor to Moses, his task is to go out and conquer the land. Matthew does not recount Jesus’s departure, because the emphasis is on the disciples’ task for the whole world and on Jesus’s abiding presence among them as they accomplish this task.
As Moses looked out over the land of Israel, so Jesus looks out over the whole world. Moses was given authority over Israel, but Jesus is given authority over all heaven and earth. Moses did not join with the people in entering the land, but Jesus has put his feet on the land to transform it. By closing in this way, Matthew indicates his eschatological outlook toward Jesus: Jesus is not just Moses but also Joshua, and he is not only Joshua but also Israel. As Moses led the people out of the land of Egypt, Jesus leads the people into the new heaven and the new earth. The promised land of Israel foreshadowed the new heavens and the new earth. According to Matthew, Jesus is the one who fulfills the life of Moses. It is not sufficient merely to look at the occurrences of Moses’s name in Matthew. No, the parallels occur not only where Matthew mentions Moses explicitly but also where Jesus travels, walks, and sleeps and the place from which he departs.
Conclusion
Shadow stories do not negate history; they enlighten and clarify it. Although some have waved an apprehensive wand, denying Moses typology because it is not as explicit as they would like, the discipled scribe does not stoop to the wishes of modern or premodern interpreters. Dale Allison has shown that Moses typology was used quite frequently in early Jewish literature, and Matthew seems to be stepping into that tradition rather than swerving from it.58 Although Matthew’s Moses typology is not always explicit, this survey has demonstrated “that Matthew embroidered brighter and thicker Mosaic threads into the fabric of history than many have allowed.”59
At the beginning of this chapter, I asked whether Jesus was simply the new prophet like Moses or if the parallels were more expansive than this. My argument has been that the exodus tradition brings a centralizing force to all th
at Moses is and was. Jesus is not merely like Moses as a teacher, mediator, lawgiver, redeemer, king, prophet, and physician. Rather, Jesus surpasses Moses in every respect. All of these titles and descriptors interact with one another and form a holistic picture of Jesus as the new Moses. He is the redeemer, who is the prophet, their savior, their lawgiver, and their king. All of these images are means to an end––the new exodus. A later rabbinic tradition shows that Matthew’s rich storehouse of examples was a pattern in early interpretation.
R. Berekiah said in the name of R. Isaac: As the first redeemer [Moses] was, so shall the latter Redeemer [Messiah] be. What is stated of the former redeemer? “And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass” (Exod. 4:20). Similarly it will be with the latter Redeemer, as it is stated, “Lowly and riding upon an ass” (Zech. 9:9). As the former redeemer caused manna to descend, as it is stated, “Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you” (Exod. 16:4), so will the latter Redeemer cause manna to descend, as it is stated, “May he be as rich as a cornfield in the land” (Ps. 72:16). As the former redeemer made a well to rise (Num. 21:17–18), so the latter Redeemer brings up water, as it is stated, “And a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, and shall water the valley of Shittim” (Joel 4:18 [3:18 Eng.]).60
The rabbis understood that the messiah would enact many parts of the Moses story. Philo seems to agree when he says, “Having shown that Moses was a most excellent king, and lawgiver, and high priest, I come in the last place to show that he was also the most illustrious of prophets” (Mos. 2.187). Matthew is our teacher and scribe, showing how the new interprets the old and how the old informs the new. In so doing he instructs about both the life of Jesus and the life of Moses. Matthew treats the life of Moses like a richly woven fabric to be trimmed and tailored into a beautiful cloak. He uses scenes, themes, titles, and descriptions to compare Jesus’s life to Moses. Matthew employs this Mosaic shadow story to show how Jesus leads his people on the new exodus.
Matthew, Disciple and Scribe Page 24
