The fathers read Moses not merely as a predecessor of Christ but as the most complete Christological dramatist of the Old Testament — his life, his law, his face, his rod, his rock, his serpent, his tent — every element was a prophecy enacted before it was spoken.
The Greater Prophet: From Sinai to the Sermon on the Mount
John Chrysostom in his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew devotes extensive attention to the contrast between the law on Sinai and the teaching on the Mount. He sets the scene: “Moses went up into the mountain, and came down, bringing the law. Christ went up into the mountain, and there He gave law to His disciples” . But the mountain itself is different — Sinai “smoked, was troubled, and exhibited terrible signs,” while the Mount of Beatitudes “had no such thing” . The difference signals the nature of the two covenants: one of fear, the other of love.
Chrysostom notes that Christ “did not go up with a multitude, but took with Him His disciples alone” — suggesting the intimacy of the new covenant. And critically: “When He was come near, He did not send Moses up, nor did He order the people to stand far off, but He Himself was the mediator, speaking to them from His own lips” . The law was given through a mediator (Moses); the new law is given directly by the Lawgiver Himself.
Cyril of Alexandria in his Commentary on John examines the same contrast. He writes: “Through Moses, the people of Israel received the law, not as though it came from him, but from God. But Christ, being God by nature, did not receive the office of lawgiver from another… He was Himself the Lawgiver” . Cyril notes the staggering implication: “If Moses, being a servant, gave a law that was worthy of admiration… how shall we not admire the law of Christ, who is Lord and God?” .
Augustine adds that the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ — the Law could accuse but could not heal; grace heals the very wound the Law exposes . The Law is a pedagogue leading to Christ, not an end in itself.
The Veil of Moses: From Glory to Greater Glory
This is the richest single typology in the patristic treatment of Moses, drawn directly from 2 Corinthians 3. John Chrysostom devotes an entire homily to it, arguing that the veiling of Moses’ face signifies precisely that the Law was a hidden mystery that could not be fully seen until Christ removed the veil. Moses “put a veil upon his face, because the people could not look upon the glory” — but his glory was fading glory, which is why he veiled it: “That which was fading was hidden, that it might not be conspicuous; but the [new covenant’s] glory is permanent, and therefore the boldness is also permanent” .
Chrysostom presses the point that the Law’s glory was real but temporary — like the morning star that shines brightly but is eclipsed by the rising sun. He asks: “If the Law had been given from the first, and then grace, perhaps the Law might have seemed superfluous. But as it is, the need of the Law was shown, in that it was given when sin was at its height, and the world was in total darkness” . The Law was not a mistake — it was a necessary stage in the divine pedagogy.
Augustine — in several passages — reads the veil as the blindness of the Jews who read Moses without understanding Christ. He notes that “the same veil remains on the reading of the Old Testament” whenever Christ is not recognized as its meaning . But when a Jew “turns to the Lord, the veil is removed” — and then they see that Moses was speaking about Christ all along .
Jerome quotes the same Pauline text in his Commentary on Matthew, noting that the Law “was given through Moses, but the veil of the letter covered the understanding of those who read it” — and that “when the Lord Jesus was transfigured on the mountain, Moses and Elijah appeared with Him in glory,” signifying that the Law and the Prophets, when they come to Christ, lose their veil and are glorified .
Origen takes this further, arguing that Moses himself was a type of the letter of the Law — and his burial in an unknown grave signifies that the literal sense of the Law is dead without Christ. Only when the spiritual meaning (Christ) is revealed does Moses become alive again .
Moses’ Rod, the Rock, the Manna, and the Brazen Serpent: Four Sacramental Types
The fathers saw the entire wilderness wandering as a single prophetic drama, with four climactic types.
The Rod of Moses: The rod that turned into a serpent and then back into a rod was read as a type of the Incarnation and the cross. John Chrysostom says the rod becoming a serpent shows “the Lord’s cross, which swallowed up the serpents of Egypt — the demons” . The serpent of brass lifted up in the wilderness is the same rod that becomes a sign of salvation. Ambrose calls the rod “the mystery of the cross” and says that “when Moses holds it out, the enemies are overcome; when he prays with it stretched forth, the sea is divided” — all prefiguring the power of the cross extended in prayer .
The Rock (Exodus 17 and Numbers 20): This is universally read by the fathers as Christ Himself. Augustine writes: “The rock was Christ. For the same rock is everywhere — the rock which was struck, and from which water flowed for the people, and the rock which followed them” . The striking of the rock prefigures the piercing of Christ’s side, from which flow the sacraments — water (baptism) and blood (Eucharist).
The Manna: Read as the Eucharist, consistently and universally. Chrysostom compares the manna to the Eucharist and finds the latter surpasses the former at every point: “The manna was from heaven, but it was bread for the belly. This bread comes from heaven, but it nourishes the soul unto eternal life. The manna was for those in the wilderness; this is for those in the world. The manna was for one people; this is for the whole world” .
The Brazen Serpent (Numbers 21) : Read as the cross. Augustine devotes particular attention to this. He explains its logic: “The serpent of brass was lifted up, and whoever looked upon it was healed of the serpent’s bites. This was a figure of Christ lifted up on the cross, that whoever looks upon Him in faith might be healed from the bites of the old serpent, the devil” . The key insight: “As the brass serpent had no poison, so Christ had no sin; yet He bore the likeness of sinful flesh (the form of a serpent) that sin might be condemned in the flesh” . The bronze serpent looks like a serpent but has no venom — just as Christ appears in the likeness of sinful flesh but is without sin.
Cyril of Jerusalem ties the brazen serpent back to the cross: “The serpent was raised, that those bitten might look and live. Christ was raised on the cross, that the world, bitten by the old serpent, might look and be healed” .
The Fourfold Plague of Egypt vs. the Fourfold Remedy: The Law as Pedagogy
Origen offers a remarkable reading of the plagues as types of the Law’s preparatory work. He writes that the Holy Spirit “through the law of Moses and the prophets writes ‘the double’ in the hearts of those who are subject to them” — meaning the Law gives both a literal command and a spiritual meaning. The plagues are ten judgments that progressively break the power of Pharaoh (the devil) — just as the Ten Commandments progressively teach humanity its need for a savior .
Irenaeus frames the entire Exodus as a type of baptism and liberation: just as Israel passed through the Red Sea (baptism) and ate the manna (Eucharist) and drank from the rock (Christ), so the Church passes through the waters and is fed with the sacraments . Moses leading Israel out of Egypt prefigures Christ leading the Church out of the dominion of sin.
The Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Liturgy: The Heavenly Pattern Shown on the Mountain
One of the most striking patristic readings — developed by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa — is that the Tabernacle itself, with its precise measurements and materials, is a type of the cosmos and of Christ’s body.
Clement writes that “the sacred tabernacle of Moses… was a pattern of the whole world” and that the veil before the Holy of Holies signifies “the firmament which divides the upper heavens from the lower” . But he also reads it Christologically: the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies once a year is “a type of the great High Priest, Christ Jesus, who has entered once into the Holy Place, not made with hands” .
Origen takes this further. He reads the precise measurements of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-30) as a hidden prophecy of Christ’s body. The table of showbread is the Eucharistic table; the seven-branched lampstand is the Church; the altar of incense is prayer; the ark of the covenant is the humanity of Christ united to the Word .
The Greater Lawgiver: What the Fathers Understood
The fathers saw Moses and Christ as the two great lawgivers — but the relationship is typological, not competitive. Moses wrote the Law on stone; Christ writes it on hearts. Moses’ face shone with reflected glory; Christ’s face shines with His own glory. Moses brought the people to the border of the Promised Land but could not enter; Christ brings His people into the Promised Land itself. Moses built a tabernacle of animal skins; Christ builds a tabernacle of His own body.
Cyril of Alexandria says it most directly: “What Moses gave was the law of works; what Christ gives is the law of grace. The one commands; the other enables. The one reveals sin; the other takes it away” .
And Chrysostom captures the pathos of the contrast: “Moses went up into the mountain, and came down, bringing a law which condemned the world. Christ went up into the mountain, and came down with a law which saves the world” .
What the Fathers Did NOT Say
Notably absent from the patristic treatments is any suggestion that the Law is opposed to Christ. The Marcionite heresy — that the Law was from a different, lesser God — is consistently rejected. For the fathers, the Law is from the same God, given through the same Word who would later become flesh. The difference is not in the author but in the economy: the Law prepared the way; the Gospel is the way itself. Moses is not the opponent of Christ but His most faithful prophet — the one who, knowing He would come, arranged every detail of the Law and the Tabernacle to point to Him.