Chapter 14.12

Christ & Mega Mysticism

Table of Topics

A) Let Us Dare Not Compare Ourselves with God the Son

B) Jesus Actually “Saw” and “Heard” the Father

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Mega mystics teach that we must observe circumstances around us to recognize and interpret the leading of God in our life, just as Jesus supposedly claims He did.
• John 5:19-20, 30 describing Christ’s revelatory relationship with the Father says nothing about how God guides us.
• We must be very careful in assuming what we can duplicate in God the Son’s relationship with God the Father. They were both God, after all.
• Jesus did not receive His revelations through some sort of mental telepathy, but rather, when He speaks of “seeing” and “hearing” the Father, He is referring to the same kind of revelations received through the Prophets before Him, in the form of apparitions, auditions, and visions.
• There is a prevalent conception in Christianity that Jesus was constantly in some sort of mental communion with the Father such that thoughts were being transmitted telepathically to Jesus in a continual stream of information. On the contrary, Jesus spoke repeatedly of receiving divine revelation by what He physically “saw” and “heard,” not just what He thought.

A) Let Us Dare Not Compare Ourselves with God the Son

Jesus said:

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by Himself [aph heautou ouden, “which proceeds or originates from Himelf” ^[1]]; He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.  ²⁰For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does. . . . By Myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and My judgment is just. (John 5:19-20, 30).

How are we to interpret and apply such statements? Unfortunately, those with a mega mystical bent like Dr. Blackaby imply that there is a direct application to the way we should be expecting to be guided in our own lives. Accordingly he writes:

The sinless Son of God, the only Person who perfectly fulfilled the Father’s will, did not make decisions independent of the heavenly Father’s personal [extra-biblical] direction. It seems absurd to think that anyone else should. ^[2]

Accordingly, Dr. Blackaby teaches that we must observe circumstances around us to recognize and interpret the leading of God in our life, just as Jesus supposedly claims He did here.

First, we must be very careful in assuming what we are to duplicate in God the Son’s relationship with God the Father. They were both God, after all. Is it just us, or does it strike the reader as well, that it borders on insanity to claim to have a relationship with God that was as intimate and personal as Jesus in the flesh experienced!? Jesus claimed every thought, decision, and word was directly given to Him by God the Father. Do we really want to claim a conversational relationship with God that even comes close to this? Mega mystics insist the answer is yes.

However, we are hopefully brought back to reality when we properly recognize the many unique things about God the Son that exclude us from applying such a description to ourselves. These uniquenesses include not only ones found throughout the Gospels, but in the text of John 5 quoted above and we must notice the context of Christ’s statements instead of using them as isolated proof texts as Dr. Blackaby does. Dr. Friesen responds:

Is [a mega mystical view] a valid application of John 5:19? It is true that John 5 clearly emphasizes how Christ did God’s will rather than His own (John 5:30, 36). The main point of this passage, however, is to prove that Jesus was equal to God. His opponents accused Him of “making Himself equal to God” (John 5:18) and Jesus asserted that He was guilty as charged. Jesus saw the Father at work and did the same works (John 5:19).

The initial work appears to be the miraculous healing that started the debate (John 5:1-16). More pertinent are the two further works that Jesus claims to do in John 5: 17-29. The first work is giving life to the dead. The Father raises the dead and so does the Son (john 5:21). The second work is judgment. The Father judges and has given this judgment to the Son (john 5:22) as well as equal honor (John 5:23). . . .

The works that the Father does He gives to the Son to do. The Son does them and the works are a witness that the Father has sent the Son (john 5:36-37). As Westcott points out, this is not mere “imitation by the Son, but by virtue of the sameness of nature with the Father.”

Essentially, Jesus has been asked to defend His authority to heal on the Sabbath, and really even His deity (cf. John 5:1-18, 31-37). In order to address both issues, Jesus answered that God the Father was telling Him to heal on the Sabbath, even though it was something that violated Scripture at the time. Accordingly, Christ’s intimate relationship with the Father was a unique proof of His deity and authority to revise Scripture. Therefore, this passage must be taken out of its original context if it is used to support the idea that it is a normative description of how our relationship with the Father is to be.

Only when we want to claim the position and mission of Christ Himself, should we claim His revelatory abilities and attributes. Do we need to prove our deity as He did? Are we declaring that God has radically changed His covenant with humanity? Are we claiming to speak, act, and think exactly like God the Father does? If not, then we have no business using these descriptions of Christ’s revelatory relationship with the Father as a proof text for claiming we should expect a similar relationship.

The reason that God the Son had the kind of direct relationship with God the Father is because He was God. While we have God living in us, Jesus was God. He did not have a will separate from God the Father because all the Persons of the Godhead have only one will. This is why Christ did not simply say He chose to align His will with the Father’s, but rather, He could not do anything else. ^[3] It is not possible for one Person of the Trinity to operate with a different will because They are one Will. This is the foundation of the unique unity that Christ describes above, for we cannot claim with Him, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Obviously, then, because we are not a part of the Trinity, we need to be careful about applying descriptions of Their relationship with One Another to ourselves, as Dr. Blackaby does with John 5.

Accordingly, Dr. Friesen remarks:

Jesus means that He actually does the same works that He sees His Father doing-resurrection and judgment. He is equal to the Father. We don’t see the Father directly within the Godhead as Jesus does. We do not do the same works that the Father does-resurrection and judgment. These things are quite different from seeing God’s influence in circumstances and joining in to minister. ^[4]

While mega mystics would claim the kind of relationship that God has with God is necessary for the Christian life, Jesus said its purposes were unique to Him. First, as we have already noted, it was originally described as a proof of His deity. Secondly, Christ directly represented God on Earth. Of course more mystical Christians would like to claim, “I judge only as I hear” from God (John 5:30), but “the Father” has not “entrusted all judgment” to them as He had to Christ (cf. John 5:22).

The divine direction that God the Father gave God the Son was not only for the unique purpose of representing Him in deeds (cf. John 5:36), but in words as well. Accordingly, Christ said: “I do nothing on My own but speak just what the Father has taught Me” (John 8:28-29; cf. 12:49-50). No one today can claim such communication with the Father because no one today speaks for the Father like Jesus, Apostles, and Prophets did.

Accordingly, Dr. Friesen writes:

There is nothing to preclude the possibility that the communion of God with God touched every detail of Christ’s life. . . . But the uniqueness of Christ is so pervasive, it would behoove us to be cautious in suggesting those points at which Christ’s life provides a normative example for the believer today. . . .

Everyone agrees that Christ’s life was not normative for Christian experience at every point. His relationship with the Father is different from that of everyone else. God is “His own Father” which means that He is “equal with God” (John 5:18). It is not normative experience for the believer to follow the example of Christ by being equal with God, or regularly performing miracles, or speaking authoritatively on every interpretation of Scripture, or receiving worship, or calling for absolute allegiance, or reading the thoughts of opponents, or giving others the authority to do miracles, or exercising any other prerogative of deity. The non-normative character of Christ’s life is further underscored by His office as a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; Matthew 11:21; John 6:14; Acts 3:20-23). As a prophet, He would regularly receive direct revelation from God-a privilege not experienced by everyone else.

In the epistles, Christ is declared to be our example. But the extent to which He is our model is not open-ended. He is our example in specific ways. Whenever the Bible calls God, or Christ, our example, it delineates the area of likeness. Those areas cited include: humble service (John 13:1-15), holiness (I Peter 1:15-16), righteousness (I John 3:7), purity (I John 3:3), love (Ephesians 5:1-2), forgiveness (Colossians 3:13), compassion (Ephesians 4:32), endurance (Hebrews 12:24), submission (I Peter 2:21-24), humility and obedience (Philippians 2:5-8), kindness (Luke 6:35), and generosity in giving (2 Corinthians 8:1-9).

Significantly, the areas in which believers are told to imitate Jesus Christ concern the manner in which He fulfilled the moral will of God. Just as Jesus obeyed His Father’s will, so the sons of God should obey their Father’s will. The difference is this: For the only begotten Son of God, His Father’s will was revealed through a variety of means; for the born anew sons of God, their Father’s will is fully revealed in His Word-the Bible. ^[5]

Therefore, we suggest it is not only a mistake, but possibly arrogant, and eventually dangerous to claim we are to attain to the intimacy that God the Son had with God the Father. Would we dare expect to have a similar relationship with God? Can we accept the fact that because of Who Christ was and the mission He had, and the place in salvation history He possessed, that His interaction with God would be more intimate than our own? We had better, if we truly don’t want to be out of God’s will.

Finally, Dr. Friesen makes the following observation regarding John 5:19-20:

The [mega mystical] view seems to be building on the coincidence of the wording of John 5:19 rather than Jesus’ meaning. We commonly speak of “seeing God at work.” We mean that we see His influence in a particular circumstance-blessing, conviction, revival, and so on. By “joining God in the work” we mean that we pray and get involved with people and ministries. Our common expressions are similar to that of Jesus in John 5:19, but the meaning is quite different.

And so I conclude that the suggested interpretation of John 5:19 is flawed. At the same time, I commend the approach taken in the illustration. There is nothing wrong with finding people who are praying for a church and sending a church planter to them. Paul would call this an “open door” for ministry (1 Corinthians 16:8-9; 2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3) .12 So there is a perfectly good, biblical rationale for the church planting strategy. It just doesn’t come from the words of Jesus recorded in John 5, nor do those words support a theology of an individual [private] will.

To sum up, John 5 presents Jesus as a model for obeying the Father and doing His will. Verse 19, however, does not set out a way of discerning the individual will of God by watching circumstances in the world. ^[6]

A biblical example of this kind of wisdom was given to the disciples when Jesus sent them to preach with the following instructions: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town” (Matt 10:14). There is no need to super-supernaturalize this by claiming that we need more than common sense to act with wisdom in such a circumstance. We need not assume in such a case that God is sending us a message, but rather, most of our circumstances are normal occurrences of life that do not involve any miraculous divine intervention at all. Accordingly, as discussed elsewhere regarding a biblical view of circumstances, careful human wisdom is to be our guide in such matters. ^[7]

B) Jesus Actually “Saw” and “Heard” the Father

There is a prevalent conception in Christianity that Jesus was constantly in some sort of mental communion with the Father such that thoughts were being transmitted telepathically to Jesus in a continual stream of information. On the contrary, Jesus spoke repeatedly of receiving divine revelation by what He physically “saw” and “heard,” not just what He thought:

I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen (John 3:11). ^[8]

The One Who comes from Heaven is above all. He testifies to what He has seen and heard” (John 3:31-2).

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by Himself [aph heautou ouden, “which proceeds or originates from Himself” ^[9]]; He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.  ²⁰For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does (John 5:19-20).

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and My judgment is just (John 5:30).

He Who sent Me is reliable, and what I have heard from Him I tell the world”. . . I do nothing on My own but speak just what the Father has taught Me [through what I heard] (John 8:26, 28).

I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence (John 8:38).

You are determined to kill Me, a man Who has told you the truth that I heard from God (John 8:40).

It seems clear that Christ is speaking literally about physically hearing and seeing revelation. ^[10] There is no reason to interpret Him here as merely speaking metaphorically or mystically. Especially when we have ample biblical descriptions of His fellow Prophets seeing and hearing the revelation of God as well, either in visions or actual apparitions. ^[11]

It is interesting to note that all of these rather physical descriptions of how Jesus received revelation is given by the Apostle John who was especially focused on demonstrating the authenticity of Christ (cf. John 20:30-1). The contexts of these statements are often when Jesus is defending the authenticity and divinity of His revelations. How convincing would it be for Him to merely claim, “The Father is constantly giving Me mental impulses regarding the truth”? How much more helpful for Him to say He is actually seeing and hearing the Father.

Admittedly, the language is remarkable, and the present tenses used would again suggest to some, a kind of continual mental telepathy between the Father and Son. But Jesus did not speak in terms of mere mental impulses, but again of what He saw and heard. Therefore, the safest conclusion is that He again is speaking of visions and/or apparitions. While the past tenses in some verses suggest visions He experienced in the past, other verses suggest Jesus may have continually experienced visions rather immediately before He did something or judged someone. Jesus spoke what He had “heard” the Father say (John 8:26), and had “seen in the Father’s presence” (8:38)

Why then do so many conclude that all of this Father/Son communication was silent, mystical, mental telepathy? Why do most outright reject the suggestion that Christ physically saw and heard the Father with His human eyes and ears as part of the process by which He received the divine revelation He spoke? It is because we live in a mystical age when such a notion is not spiritual enough for many, but that some sort of higher ESP is.

It is probable that Christ saw and heard the Father in revelatory visions like the Prophet Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. The experience of a vision, for example, may best explain His statement: “I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence” (John 8:38). This seems to be describing an experience of being translated to the heavenly realm much like several biblical Prophets to receive revelation. Accordingly, Jesus no doubt saw and heard divine revelation in such visions. ^[12]

However, we would suggest Christ also habitually experienced His revelation in a more physical way with His human eyes and ears. We would suggest at least two reasons for this. First, we have several recorded instances of Jesus physically hearing the Father while He was on Earth, which in itself is a very unique experience. Accordingly, we have noted elsewhere:

At the time of Christ’s baptism, “a voice from Heaven said, “This is My Son, Whom I love; with Him I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17). Likewise, at Christ’s transfiguration, “a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is My Son, Whom I love; with Him I am well pleased. Listen to Him!” (Matt 17:5). And again, at Christ’s request for the Father to glorify His Name, John records, “Then a voice came from Heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.’ The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to Him” (John 12:28-29). ^[13]

Why couldn’t the Father have spoken audibly to Christ at other times?

Our second line of evidence that the seeing and hearing through which Christ received revelation was of a physical kind is the ministry of Moses. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

God said: When a Prophet of the LORD is among you, I reveal Myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he [physically] sees the form of the LORD. (Num 12:6-8)

Of course, neither Moses nor any human has literally seen God’s face (cf. Exod 33:20; John 1:18; 6:46; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12), although we are told Moses was granted an apparition of God’s “back” (Exod 33:23). But God uses the metaphor to reflect how intimate Moses’ experiences with God were. As we read elsewhere, “The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend” (Exod 33:9). The phrase also probably reflects the fact that while Moses only saw “the form of the Lord,” he physically heard the voice of the Lord as if God were facing Him.

Therefore, when we read almost 140 times “The Lord said to Moses,” we have good reason to believe these revelatory experiences were in the context of seeing “the form of the Lord” and speaking to Him as “face to face,” just as God Himself described (Num 12:8). Accordingly, we can conclude that essentially the whole Law of Moses, consisting of large portions of Exodus and Numbers, and virtually all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, were received in this very same way. Not in visions, but in a very physical experience with God, either on Mount Sinai (cf. Exod 31:18; Lev 25:1; 27:34), or in the Tent of Meeting (cf. Exod 33:9; Num 1:1). ^[14]

In Numbers 12:6-8 God is making it clear that the physical revelations that Moses was accustomed to experiencing with his physical eyes and ears were superior to the merely mental visions He gave other Prophets. Why then would we relegate Christ to a means of divine revelation less than what Moses experienced as the communicator of the Old Covenant? In fact, God Himself parallels the revelatory ministry of Moses with Christ when He foretold, “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brothers” (Deut 18:18). ^[15] If God is equating Christ with Moses in some way, as most commentators believe, then this would seem to be some evidence that if Moses habitually experienced divine revelation in a physical way, then so did Christ.

Granted, we do not have numerous and detailed descriptions in Scripture of Christ receiving revelations. What we do have is His repeated statement that His divine revelation came through what He “heard” and “saw” from the Father, either physically like Moses, or in visions like other Prophets. What we do not have is any indication in Scripture of the mega mystical idea of a constant telepathic communion between the Father and Son.

Regardless of whether Christ’s seeing and hearing revelation was the physical or visionary kind, when would we suggest these revelatory episodes occurred? The most likely time was during the many occasions that Christ intentionally went to solitary places alone. Luke records, “Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed (5:16), and at least on one occasion this was for a whole “night” (6:12; cf. Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; 6:46). During these times of intercession with the Father, Jesus no doubt was spoken to by the Father.

In other words, why would we assume that what Jesus experienced with others at His “transfiguration” was unique? We read that, “there [physically] appeared . . . Moses and Elijah, [audibly] talking with Jesus,” and that the Father Himself spoke audibly (cf. Matt 17:3-5). Perhaps the only thing unique about this incident in Christ’s life is that His three closest disciples were invited to personally witness it. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that Christ did not receive much of the divine revelation He possessed in this same rather physical manner while He was on Earth.

Such visions could have occurred at the times of solitude noted above. One especially thinks of the 40 days of fasting in the desert that occurred at the very beginning of His ministry (cf. Matt 4:1-11). While obviously no such experience is recorded, such supernatural phenomena as interacting with the devil and being attended to by Angels suggests He sure could have interacted with His Father as well. Moses, of whom the prophetical ministry of Christ was to be patterned after (cf. Deut 18:18), received much of his physical revelation when he was, “with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water” (Exod 34:28).

Once again, then, we should not presume to imitate Christ in the way that He received guidance from the Father.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What do mega mystics claim John 5:19-20, 30 is teaching? How have we responded?
2. What are things about Jesus’ ministry that we believe argues against this?
3. Which view do you think is correct and why?
4. What common misconception of how Jesus received divine revelation do we suggest? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Publications & Particulars

1. William Barclay, Daily Study Bible, CD-ROM (Liguori Publications, 1996), loc. cit. ↑

2. Henry Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Broadman & Holman, 2003), 6. ↑

3. Accordingly, NT scholar Leon Morris commented:

   It is not simply that he does not act in independence of the Father; he cannot act in independence of the Father. He can do only the things he sees the Father doing. There is a continual contemplation of the Father by the Son, an uninterrupted communion. The result of this is that it is the things the Father does that the Son does, too not in imitation, but in virtue of His sameness of nature” (Westcott). 277 ↑

4. Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), 63. ↑

5. Ibid., 94-5. ↑

6. Ibid., 62-3. ↑

7. Regarding a biblical view of our circumstances see chapter 14.7. ↑

8. Christ’s reference to “what we have seen” has produced some debate. Who is Jesus referring to in addition to Himself? Calvin wrote: “For my own part, I have no doubt that Christ mentions himself in connection with all the prophets of God, and speaks generally in the person of all.” (Commentaries; online at http://www.ccel.org). If Christ is speaking of the revelation of new divine doctrine, then this is the only acceptable answer for us. Both Jesus and the Prophets spoke from what they had seen in visions. This seems to be the best interpretation.

   In our opinion, D. A. Carson successfully debunks two common interpretations, but his own is inadequate:

   Jesus speaks in the plural: we speak ... we know ... we testify ... we have seen. As in v. 7, the ‘you’ also becomes plural: hence NIV’S you people. A few commentators therefore conclude that the historical Jesus thereby identifies himself with his disciples [cf. Morris, 196; Ridderbos, 134, Barnes]. This is unlikely: at this point in their pilgrimage the disciples could not be described as speaking of what they know and testifying to what they have seen, viz. heavenly things (v. 12).

   The majority of interpreters detect frank anachronism: v. 11 does not report what Jesus said to Nicodemus, but what the church of John’s day said to the synagogue. Bruce (pp. 86-87) makes a virtue of this perceived necessity: the Evangelist does not care whether he relates the witness of Jesus, or the witness of the later church to Jesus, since at bottom the witness is all one and the same. But although it may be ‘the same’ in the sense that all of it ultimately relates to the same divine self-disclosure in Jesus Christ, the sameness stops there. John is persistently careful to distinguish between what the disciples understood during Jesus’ ministry and what they understood only later (cf. notes on 2:22, and Carson, ‘Mis’).

   The simplest explanation for the plurals in this verse is that Jesus is sardonically aping the plural that Nicodemus affected when he first approached Jesus (v. 2). ‘Rabbi’, Nicodemus said, ‘we know you are a teacher who has come from God …. ‘ ‘I tell you the truth’, responds Jesus, ‘we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen’ – as if to say, ‘We know one or two things too, we do!’ (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1991], 198-99).

   Again, because the revelation that Jesus is speaking of is “heavenly things” (v. 12), it seems best to understand Him as grouping Himself with others who testified to direct divine revelation, most immediately referring to the Prophet John the Baptist. ↑

9. Barclay, loc. cit. ↑

10. NT scholar Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007) commented on John 3:11 and 5:30:

    Intended above all is the Son’s unmediated knowledge of the Father (cf. 1:18), which in vss. 31-36 is defined as knowledge on the part of him who “comes from above” and who “bears witness to what he has seen and heard” (vss. 31, 32f.; cf. 7:28 f.). Elsewhere, too, Jesus bases his knowledge of God on what he has “seen” and “heard” (e.g. 5:19, 20, 30; 8:26, 28, 40, 50; 12:50), and that in contrast with those who have never heard his voice or seen him (5:37; cf. 6:46). . . . The Fourth Gospel repeatedly traces Jesus’ speech and action to what he “saw” and “heard.” Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John (Eerdmans, 1997), 133, 192.

    Unfortunately, Dr. Ridderbos has been about the only commentator who even recognized the physical meaning of Christ’s language, let alone its significance. However, even he claimed that the “seeing” Christ refers to in John 3:11 cannot be “referring to visions, which certainly does not fit Jesus” (133). Why not? He was a Prophet from God. And Dr. Ridderbos, to our knowledge, while recognizing that Jesus described His revelations as “seeing” and “hearing” never describes more specifically what Jesus meant by that.

    Calvin has little comment on Jesus’ description of his revelations. Barnes rather pathetically comments on 3:11:

    Jesus had seen by his omniscient eye all the operations of the Spirit on the hearts of men. His ministers have seen its effects as we see the effects of the wind, and, having seen men changed from sin to holiness, they are qualified to bear witness to the truth and reality of the change. (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament; online at http://www.ccel.org)

    The “seeing” and “hearing” language Jesus uses to describe the means of his revelation meant a lot more than Him merely witnessing changes in people’s lives. Dr. Barnes had little comment on the other verses in John referring to this phenomena.

    Leon Morris and D. A. Carson are equally uninterested in Jesus’ descriptions of His revelations. The closest they come to any description is at 3:31 where Dr. Carson writes: “only the Son of Man can speak with supreme authority of heavenly things, for he alone testifies to what he has seen and heard in the heavenly sphere” (213). Dr. Morris uses identical language (The Gospel According to John (NICNT) [Eerdmans, 1995], 216). However, neither elaborates on what they mean by “heavenly sphere.”

    At times, Dr. Morris seems to especially miss the more objective/physical nature of Christ’s revelatory experiences and gives an unbiblical mystical twist to them when he writes on John 5:19: “There is a continual contemplation of the Father by the Son, an uninterrupted communion” (277). Likewise on 5:30 he writes: “the language is metaphorical and points to the Son’s complete dependence on the Father . . . He is always in touch with the Father” (286). ↑

11. For examples of physical revelation to the Prophets in the OT see section 9.5.A and chapters 10.10-10.11. ↑

12. For further discussion of the recorded instances when Christ physically heard the Father while on Earth see section 10.10.A. ↑

13. Excerpt from section 10.10.A. ↑

14. Excerpt from section 10.10.B. ↑

15. Dr. Barnes wrote regarding Deuteronomy 18:18:

    The ancient fathers of the Church and the generality of modern commentators have regarded our Lord as the prophet promised in these verses. It is evident from the New Testament alone that the Messianic was the accredited interpretation among the Jews at the beginning of the Christian era (compare the marginal references, and John 4:25); nor can our Lord Himself, when He declares that Moses “wrote of Him” John 5:45-47, be supposed to have any other words more directly in view than these, the only words in which Moses, speaking in his own person, gives any prediction of the kind. (Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament, Electronic Step Files [Findex.com])

    C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch remarkably have no comment on the relationship between Moses and Christ at Deuteronomy 18:18 (Commentary on the Old Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.com, 2000]). ↑