And not as Moses, that is, we do not do what Moses did. Paul had just said that he used great plainness of speech, that he practiced no
concealment or reserve. Of course he means that Moses did the reverse.
He did use concealment and practice reserve. This is no impeachment of the character of Moses. Paul is not speaking of his personal character, but of the nature of his office. The truth concerning man’s redemption was not
“in other ages made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,” <490305>
Ephesians 3:5. It was not consistent with the nature of the ministry of Moses to use the
parjrJhsi>a, the openness, in communicating the doctrines of redemption, which it is the glory of the Christian ministry to be permitted to employ.
He was sent to speak in parables and in types, to set forth truth in the form of significant rites and ceremonies. He put a veil over the glory, not to hide it entirely from view, but to obscure its brightness. The people saw the light, but only occasionally and imperfectly. Paul had already spoken of the brightness of Moses’s face as a symbol of his ministry, and therefore he represents him as veiling himself, to express the idea that he communicated the truth obscurely. Paul was sent to let the truth shine forth clearly; he did not put a veil over it as Moses did, and was
commanded to do. That the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. That is, to prevent their seeing the end or fading away of the brightness of his face. The word katargou>menov (that which is abolished) is used, v. 7, in reference to the glory of the face of Moses, and v. 11 in reference to his ministry and the dispensation to which it belonged. Here the reference is to the former, because his face is spoken of, and its brightness was veiled, and therefore, it was the
brightness the end of which the Israelites were prevented from seeing. If this be so, then te>lov, the end, must mean the termination, and not the design or scope. In <451004>
Romans 10:4, Christ is said to be the end of the law, not only as abrogating it, but as being the object towards which it tended.
He was that which it was intended to reveal. Those commentators who make katargou>menon (that which is abolished) refer to the old law and its ministry, give te>lov the sense of end or object. They understand the apostle to say that Moses put a veil over his face to prevent the children
of Israel seeing Christ, who was the end of the law. But this gives a most incongruous meaning. How could Moses’s veiling his face prevent the Israelites seeing Christ? The first part of the verse cannot be taken
literally, and the latter part figuratively. If the veiling was a literal covering of the face, that which the veil hid must be something which a literal veil could cover. The majority of commentators, therefore, understand the words, that which is abolished, to refer to the visible brightness of the face of Moses, and the end to mean the termination of that brightness. The whole clause therefore means that Moses veiled his face in order to prevent the Israelites seeing how soon its brightness faded. But what has this to do with the point in hand? In answering this question it must be remembered that the apostle had referred to the brightness of the face of Moses as a fit symbol of his ministry, inasmuch as it was external and transient. To say, therefore, that Moses veiled his face that the people might not see the end of its brightness, is a figurative way of saying that Moses hid the light, or taught obscurely, that the people might not understand the true nature and intent of his ministry. But how is it
consistent with the character of God that he should commission Moses to teach obscurely in order that he might not be understood? Some endeavor to obviate this difficulty by that ajteni>sai expresses the result and not the design. ‘He put a veil over his face, so that (not, in order that) the children of Israel did not see the end of that which is abolished.’ Or, to drop the figure, ‘He taught obscurely, so that the people did not
understand him.’ This explanation, however, is forbidden by the force of the preposition pro>v, which in such connections properly expresses the design or intention. There is no special difficulty in the matter. Whatever is, God intended should be. If Moses taught obscurely or in types, God intended that he should do so. If, in point of fact, the Jews misunderstood the nature of their own economy, regarding as ultimate and permanent what was in fact preparatory and temporary, this was included in the divine purpose. It was evidently the plan of God to make the revelation of the scheme of redemption gradually. The whole was by slow degrees evolved from the original promise made to our first parents. Perhaps the object of their faith was the simple promise of redemption. To Abraham it was revealed that the Redeemer was to be one of his descendants. To Moses it was made known that he was to be a prophet like himself, and the nature of his work was obscurely set forth in the priesthood and
sacrifices which he ordained. This was enough for salvation, so long as nothing more had been revealed. It was in accordance with this plan that Moses spoke in such a way that the people did not understand the full import of his teaching, God having purposed “that they without us should not be made perfect,” <581140>
Hebrews 11:40. The passage before us is parallel, in a measure, to <410411>
Mark 4:11, where our Lord says, “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but unto them that are without all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive.” There is, therefore, as just remarked, no special difficulty in this passage, even if it is understood to teach that Moses was
commissioned so to veil his teachings that they should not be clearly understood. There is another difficulty connected with this verse. It does not seem to agree with <023430>
Exodus 34:30. There it is said that the people were afraid to approach Moses on account of the brightness of his face, and the implication (according to the English version, at least) is, that it was to calm their fears he put on a veil. Whereas here it is said that he put a veil over his face that the people might not see the transient nature of that brightness. There is no inconsistency between the two accounts. The veiling had both effects; it calmed the fears of the people, and it prevented their seeing how fleeting the brightness was. As both effects followed, both were intended. Paul in this epistle assigns in different places three or four reasons why he commanded the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous member of their church. That it was meant as a test of their obedience, <470209>
2:9, is not incompatible with its being a proof of his care for them, <470712>
7:12. There is, however, not even the appearance of discrepancy between what the apostle here says and <023430>
Exodus 34:30-33, as it is rendered both in the Septuagint and Vulgate. The English version of that passage is, “And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the
congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.... And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.” According to this Moses put a veil over his face when he spoke to the people, and the implication is that he did it because they were afraid on account of the brightness of his countenance. But the Hebrew, in v. 33, is simply,
“Moses ceased to speak with them, and put a veil over his face.” The natural meaning of which is that he did not veil his face until he had ceased
speaking. The Septuagint therefore renders the passage, “And when he ceased speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.” And the Vulgate, impletisque sermonibus, posuit velamen super faciem suam. It appears from the following verses that when Moses went in before the Lord, he removed the veil; and when he came out his face shone, and he spake to the people, and again resumed the veil. According to this interpretation of the original, the object of putting on the veil was not to calm the fear of the people, but, as Paul says, to prevent their seeing how the brightness of his face vanished.
14. But their minds were blinded; for unto this day remaineth the same veil