Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 3:13
And not as Moses, [which] put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
13. And not as Moses ] i.e. we do not act as Moses did, who put a veil on his face.
that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished ] The Greek implies that Moses placed the veil on his face after speaking to the people that they might not see the glory on his face fading. The LXX. of v. 33 implies the same thing, and the Vulgate still more explicitly. The Hebrew is ambiguous, from the want of a pluperfect tense in that language. But the LXX. in v. 34, 35, as well as the Hebrew, imply that Moses veiled his countenance on account of the terror with which its brightness inspired the Israelites. The latter says expressly that he kept his face unveiled until he came forth from speaking to God. So St Paul seems to imply himself in 2Co 3:7. The fact seems to be that St Paul, as is extremely common with him, and as occurs several times in this chapter (as in 2Co 3:3 and 2Co 3:18) gives the simile he is employing another direction. He has been contrasting the glory of the Mosaic with that of the Christian dispensation. He adduces the latter as a reason for the transparent sincerity of which he had boasted in ch. 2Co 2:17. He proceeds to contrast that absence of reserve with the reticence of Moses in the law. The figure of the veil once more occurs to him as an illustration of the fact that the Jews were not, for reasons which are obvious enough, encouraged to look upon the Law as a transitory dispensation (though sometimes hints of this kind were vaguely thrown out, as in the celebrated passage in Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18-19); not allowed to see the gradual extinction of that glory which had seemed to them so great, and whose greatness was the surest guarantee of their obedience. Many commentators have supposed here an allusion to Christ as the end of the law (Rom 10:4). But Olshausen pertinently asks, “How could St Paul say that Moses covered his countenance in order that the Israelites should not behold Christ?”
is abolished ] Literally, was being brought to nought. See note on 2Co 3:7.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And not as Moses – Our conduct is not like that of Moses. We make no attempt to conceal anything in regard to the nature, design, and duration of the gospel. We leave nothing designedly in mystery.
Which put a vail over his face – That is, when he came down from Mount Sinai, and when his face shone. Exo 34:33, and until Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. He put off this veil whenever he went to speak with God, but put on again when he delivered his commands to the people, What was the design of this, Moses has not himself declared. The statement which he makes in Exodus would lead us to suppose that it was on account of the exceeding brightness and dazzling splendor which shone around him, and which made it difficult to look intently upon him; and that this was in part the reason, even Paul himself seems to intimate in 2Co 3:7. He, however, in this verse intimates that there was another design, which was that he might be, as Doddridge expresses it, a kind of type and figure of his own dispensation.
That the children of Israel – Mr. Locke understands this of the apostles, and supposes that it means, We do not veil the light, so that the obscurity of what we deliver should hinder the children of Israel from seeing in the Law which was to be done away, Christ who is the end of the Law. But this interpretation is forced and unnatural. The phrase rendered that pros to evidently connects what is affirmed here with the statement about Moses; and shows that the apostle means to say that Moses put the veil on his face in order that the children of Israel should not be able to see to the end of his institutions. That Moses had such a design, and that the putting on of the veil was emblematic of the nature of his institutions, Paul here distinctly affirms. No one can prove that this was not his design; and in a land and time when types, and emblems, and allegorical modes of speech were much used, it is highly probable that Moses meant to intimate that the end and full purpose of his institutions were designedly concealed.
Could not stedfastly look – Could not gaze intently upon ( atenisai); see the note on 2Co 3:7. They could not clearly discern it; there was obscurity arising from the fact of the designed concealment. He did not intend that they should clearly see the full purport and design of the institutions which he established.
To the end – ( eis to telos). Unto the end, purpose, design, or ultimate result of the Law which he established. A great many different interpretations have been proposed of this. The meaning seems to me to be this: There was a glory and splendor in that which the institutions of Moses typified, which the children of Israel were not permitted then to behold. There was a splendor and luster in the face of Moses, which they could not gaze upon, and therefore he put a veil over it to diminish its intense brightness. In like manner there was a glory and splendor in the ultimate design and scope of his institutions, in that to which they referred, which they were not then able, that is, prepared to look on, and the exceeding brightness of which he of design concealed. This was done by obscure types and figures, that resembled a veil thrown over a dazzling and splendid object.
The word end, then, I suppose, does not refer to termination, or close, but to the design, scope, or purpose of the Mosaic institutions; to that which they were intended to introduce and adumbrate. that end was the Messiah, and the glory of his institutions; see the note on Rom. 10: Christ is the end of the Law. And the meaning of Paul, I take to be, is, that there was a splendor and a glory in the gospel which the Mosaic institutions were designed to typify, which was so great that the children of Israel were not fully prepared to see it, and that he designedly threw over that glory the veil of obscure types and figures; as he threw over his face a veil that partially concealed its splendor. Thus, interpreted there is a consistency in the entire passage, and very great beauty. Paul, in the following verses, proceeds to state that the veil to the view of the Jews of his time was not removed; that they still looked to the obscure types and institutions of the Mosaic Law rather than on the glory which they were designed to adumbrate; as if they should choose to look upon the veil on the face of Moses rather than on the splendor which it concealed.
Of that which is abolished – Or rather to be abolished, to katargoumenou), whose nature, design, and intention it was that it should be abolished. It was never designed to be permanent; and Paul speaks of it here as a thing that was known and indisputable that the Mosaic institutions were designed to be abolished.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 13. And not as Moses] The splendour of Moses’ countenance was so great that the Israelites could not bear to look upon his face, and therefore he was obliged to veil his face: this, it appears, he did typically, to represent the types and shadows by which the whole dispensation of which he was the minister was covered. So that the Israelites could not steadfastly look-could not then have the full view or discernment of that in which the Mosaic dispensation should issue and terminate.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
We have the history to which this passage of the apostle relateth, in Exo 34:33,35, where we read, that when Moses had done speaking, he put a veil on his face. The apostle here elegantly turns that passage into an allegory, and opens to us a mystery hidden under that piece of history. That shining of Mosess face, in a type, prefigured the shining of Him who was to be the light of the world; as he was from eternity the brightness of his Fathers glory. Mosess covering himself with a veil, signifies Gods hiding the mystery of Christ from ages. Moses did not put a veil on his face for that end, that the children of Israel might not look upon him; but this was the event of it, which also prefigured the blinding of the Jews; they first shut their eyes and would not see, then God judicially sealed their eyes that they should not see, that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness, the true Messiah, and the Mediator between God and man; they could not (as the apostle expresseth it) see
to the end of that which is abolished; to the end of the legal dispensation, to the end of all the types of Christ which were in the Levitical law. Now, (saith the apostle), we do not do so, but make it our business to preach the gospel with as much openness, and plainness, and freedom, as is imaginable. The whole history of the gospel justifieth what this text affirmeth concerning the Jews; that they could not see that Christ, by his coming, had put an end to the law, and the righteousness thereof. We find upon all occasions how much the Pharisees, and those who adhered to that sect, stuck in the law, to the hinderance of their receiving of, or believing in, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. We use no disguise, “asMoses put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel might notlook steadfastly upon the end of that which was to be done away”[ELLICOTT and others]. Theview of Ex 34:30-35,according to the Septuagint is adopted by Paul, that Moses ingoing in to speak to God removed the veil till he came out and hadspoken to the people; and then when he had done speaking,he put on the veil that they might not look on the end, or thefading, of that transitory glory. The veil was the symbol ofconcealment, put on directly after Moses’ speaking; so thatGod’s revelations by him were interrupted by intervals of concealment[ALFORD]. But ALFORD’Sview does not accord with 2Co 3:7;the Israelites “could not look steadfastly on the face of Mosesfor the glory of his countenance.” Plainly Moses’ veil was puton because of their not having been able to “looksteadfastly at him.” Paul here (2Co3:13) passes from the literal fact to the truth symbolized by it,the blindness of Jews and Judaizers to the ultimate end of the law:stating that Moses put on the veil that they might not looksteadfastly at (Christ, Ro10:4) the end of that (law) which (like Moses’glory) is done away. Not that Moses had this purpose;but often God attributes to His prophets the purpose which He hasHimself. Because the Jews would not see, God judicially gavethem up so as not to see. The glory of Moses’ face isantitypically Christ s glory shining behind the veil of legalordinances. The veil which has been taken off to the believer is lefton to the unbelieving Jew, so that he should not see (Isa 6:10;Act 28:26; Act 28:27).He stops short at the letter of the law, not seeing the end of it.The evangelical glory of the law, like the shining of Moses’ face,cannot be borne by a carnal people, and therefore remains veiled tothem until the Spirit comes to take away the veil (2Co3:14-17) [CAMERON].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face,…. This he did, because there was such a glory upon his face when he came down from the mount, that the Israelites could not bear to look upon him; and also to take off that dread of him which was upon them, for they were afraid to come nigh him; and that so they might be able to hearken and attend to the words of the law, he delivered to them: the account of Moses’s putting on this veil is in Ex 34:33 where Onkelos renders it by , “the house of the face”, or a “mask”: and Jarchi on the place says it was a “garment”, which he put before his face; and both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem call it
, “a linen cloth”: now this veil upon his face had a mystery in it; it was an emblem of the Gospel being veiled under the law, and of the darkness and obscurity of the law in the business of life and salvation; and also of the future blindness of the Jews, when the glory of the Gospel should break forth in the times of Christ and his apostles; and which was such,
that the children of Israel, the Jews, as in the times of Moses, so in the times of Christ and his apostles,
could not steadfastly look to; not upon the face of Moses, whose face was veiled; not that they might not look, but because they could not bear to look upon him; but they could not look
to the end of that which is abolished; that is, to Christ, who is the end of the law, which is abrogated by him: to him they could not look, nor could they see him to be the fulfilling end of the law for righteousness; which being fulfilled, is done away by him; and this because of the blindness of their hearts, of which blindness the veil on Moses’ face was typical: though the Alexandrian copy and the Vulgate Latin version read, “to the face of him which is abolished”.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Put a veil upon his face ( ). Imperfect active of , used to put (Ex 34:33).
That the children of Israel should not look steadfastly ( ). Purpose expressed by and the articular infinitive with negative and the accusative of general reference. The Authorized Version had a wrong translation here as if to hide the glory on his face.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Could not steadfastly look. Rev., should not. See Exo 34:30 – 35, where the A. V., by the use of till, gives the wrong impression that Moses wore the veil while speaking to the people, in order to hide the glory of his face. The true sense of the Hebrew is given by the Sept. : “When he ceased speaking he put a veil on his face;” not because the Israelites could not endure the radiance, but that they should not see it fade away. Whenever Moses went into the presence of God he removed the veil, and his face was again illumined, and shone while he delivered God ‘s message to the people. Then, after the delivery of the message, and during his ordinary association with the people, he kept his face covered. 143 To the end [ ] . Rev., on the end. The termination.
Of that which is abolished [ ] . See ver. 11. The temporarily glorified ministration of Moses. The end of this, which the veil prevented the Israelites from seeing, was the disappearance of the glory – the type of the termination of Moses ‘ ministry. Paul ‘s comparison is between the ministry of Moses, interrupted by intervals of concealment, and the gospel ministry, which is marked by frank and full proclamation. ” The opposition is twofold :
1. Between the veiled and the unveiled ministry, as regards the mere fact of concealment in the one case, and openness in the other.
2. Between the ministry which was suspended by the veiling that its end might not be seen, and that which proceeds ‘from glory to glory, ‘ having no termination ” (Alford). The face of Moses needed a continually renewed illumination : in the face of Christ the glory abides forever.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And not as Moses,” (kai ou kathaper Mouses) and not as or like Moses;” We of the church, His new covenant people, His light reflecting agents and agencies, put no veil on our faces or basket over our head, Mat 5:13-16.
2) “Which put a vail over his face,” (etithel kalumma epi to prosopon autou) “when he put a veil on his face,” Exo 34:33-35.
3) “That the children of Israel could not steadfastly look.” (pros to me atentsai tous huious Israel) to the end that the children of Israel should not gaze either upon the reflected glory of God, or upon the face of Moses, who had been in God’s presence to receive the new tablets of stone (ten) commandments, Rom 3:23; Exo 34:27-33.
4) “To the end of that which is abolished,” (eis to telos tou katargoumenou) “unto the end of the thing being done away;” The “that which is abolished,” and is done away,” which was glorious,” is the Law of Moses which was a schoolmaster to point to Christ, the Redeemer, till He came, Gal 3:19; Gal 3:24-25. The Law of Moses was annulled, had its program of religious, ceremonial, and worship rites invalidated in the death of Christ on the cross, Col 2:14-17; when He cried, “it is finished,” men were liberated from any and all Mosaic law claims of adjudication over them, Joh 19:30.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
13. Not as Moses Paul is not reasoning as to the intention of Moses. For as it was his office, to publish the law to his people, so, there can be no doubt that he was desirous, that its true meaning should be apprehended by all, and that he did not intentionally involve his doctrine in obscurity, but that the fault was on the part of the people. As, therefore, he could not renew the minds of the hearers, he was contented with faithfully discharging the duty assigned to him. Nay more, the Lord having commanded him to put a veil between his face and the eyes of the beholders, he obeyed. Nothing, therefore, is said here to the dishonor of Moses, for he was not required to do more than the commission, that was assigned to him, called for. In addition to this, that bluntness, or that weak and obtuse vision, of which Paul is now speaking, is confined to unbelievers exclusively, because the law though wrapt up in figures, (405) did nevertheless impart wisdom to babes, Psa 19:7 (406)
(405) “ Figures et ombres;” — “Figures and shadows.”
(406) “The clause rendered in our authorized version — making wise the simple, is rendered by Calvin, instructing the babe in wisdom. In Tyndale’s Bible the reading is, ‘And giveth wisdom even unto babes.’ Babes is the word used in most of the versions.” — Calvin on the Psalms, vol. 1, p. 317, n. 2. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(13) And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face.The Apostle, it must be remembered, has in his thoughts either the LXX. version of Exo. 34:33, or an interpretation of the Hebrew answering to that version. (See Note on 2Co. 3:7.) What was the object of this putting on of the veil? The English version of that text suggests that it was to hide the brightness from which they shrank. But the interpretation which St. Paul follows presents a very different view. Moses put the veil over his face that they might not see the end, the fading away of that transitory glory. For them it was as though it were permanent and unfading. They did not seethis is St. Pauls way of allegorising the fact statedthat the whole system of the Law, as symbolised by that brightness, had but a fugitive and temporary being.
Could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.Better, look on the end of that which was perishing. Literally, the words state the fact, they could not see how the perishing glory ended. In the interpretation of the parable St. Paul seems to say that what was true of those older Israelites was true also of their descendants. They could not see the true end of the perishing system of the Law, its aim, purport, consummation. There is, perhaps, though most recent commentators have refused to recognise it, a half-allusive reference to the thought expressed in Rom. 10:4, that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness; or, in 1Ti. 1:5, that the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart. Had their eyes been open, they would have seen in the fading away of the old glory of the decaying letter the dawn of a glory that excelled it. And in the thought that this was the true end of the Law we find the ground for the Apostles assertion that he used great plainness of speech. He had no need to veil his face or his meaning, for he had no fear lest the glory of the gospel of which he was a minister should fade away.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
13. Vail The emblem of concealment, and the sign of the mystery of the old in contrast with the transparency and freedom of speech under the new. The new testament was truly concealed in the old one: Christ was vailed under types and shadows; but now he is revealed in person, and declared with great plainness of speech.
Could not look to the end By the end many able commentators understand Christ, who is “the end of the law for righteousness.” And this the mystic vail, symbolized by that on Moses’s face, so shades Christ that the Jews could not behold him. And see next verse that vail still remains, concealing Christ from the Jews, who recognise not that the old is abolished, and that its end is Christ. But the true view, as Alford, and Stanley, and other late commentators have shown, will appear by a connexion of our translation of Exo 34:33, in accordance with the Septuagint and Vulgate, by a substitution of when for “till.” It will then appear that Moses spoke to the people with his radiant face unvailed, but vailed his face when he ceased speaking, so as to conceal the evanescence and cessation of the radiance. “The vailed prophet of Khorasan,” in Moore’s Lalla Rookh, always kept his face, which was really a hideous visage, concealed from the people under pretence that it was too glorious for mortal sight. Moses showed his face while radiant with the glory, and vailed it as the glory ceased. It was, then, the cessation of the radiance which St. Paul here calls the end of the abolished; and which he figures as an image of the cessation of the glory of the abolished old covenant.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Co 3:13. Could not steadfastly look, &c. St. Paul is here justifying in himself, and to other ministers of the gospel, the plainness and openness of their preaching, which he had asserted in the preceding verse. These words therefore here must, of necessity, be understood, not of Moses, but of the ministers of the gospel; namely, that it was not the obscurity of their preaching, not any thing veiled in their way of proposing the Gospel, which was the cause why the children of Israel did not understand the law perfectly, and see Christ the end of it in the writings of Moses. What is said in the next verse plainly determines the words to this sense: “We the ministers of the Gospel speak plainly and openly, and put no veil upon ourselves, (as Moses did,) whereby to hinder the Jews from seeing Christ in the law; but that which now hinders them is a wilful blindness of their minds.” This seems to be obviating an objection, which some of the Corinthians might make to the Apostle’s boasting of so much plainness and clearness in his preaching; as much as to say, “If you preach the Gospel, and Christ contained in the law, with such a shining clearness and evidence, how comes it that the Jews are not converted to it?”His reply is, “Their unbelief comes not from any obscurity in our preaching, but from a wilful blindness.” See Rom 10:2-4. Some, instead of, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look, &c. read, denoting, that the children of Israel did not look, &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2Co 3:13 . A negative amplification of the by comparison with the opposite conduct of Mose.
] sc. , according to the Greek way of putting the verb, which is common to the principal and subordinate clause, in the subordinate clause, and adapting it to the subject of that clause. See Heindorf, ad Gorg . p. 592 A; Winer, p. 542 [E. T. 728]; Khner, II. p. 609. The meaning of the allegorical language is: “ and we do not go to work veiling ourselves (dissembling), as Moses did, veiling his countenance, that the Israelites might not ,” etc. See Exo 34:33-35 .
. . .] the purpose , which Moses had in veiling his radiant face while he spoke to the people: the people were not (as they would otherwise have done) to fix their gaze on the (see below). In order to free Moses from a dissimulation, Wolf explained it: “ut indicaretur eos non posse intueri,” which, however, is not conveyed in the words, and is not to be supported by Luk 18:1 ; and Schulz and Flatt, following older commentators, explain that . . . means so that , etc., which, however, is wrong both as to the usage of the words (comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. v. 28, p. 231) and as to the connection of ideas, since the . . of 2Co 3:12 presupposes the intentional character of the opposite procedure. The latter remark applies also in opposition to de Wette (comp. before him, Beza and Calvin), who takes . . . not of the intention, but of the divine aim , according to the well-known Biblical teleology, in which the result is regarded as aimed at by God, Isa 6:9 ; Mat 13:11 ff.; Luk 8:10 . In this way a conscious concealment on the part of Moses is removed; but without sufficient ground, since that concealment must not have been regarded by Paul as immoral (“fraudulenter,” Fritzsche), and with his reverence for the holy lawgiver and prophet cannot have been so regarded, but rather, in keeping with the preparatory destination of the Mosaic system, as a paedagogic measure which Moses adopted according to God’s command, but the purpose of which falls away with the emergence of that which is abiding, i.e. of the ministry of the gospel (Gal 4:1 ff.). Finally, the argument of usage is also against de Wette, for in the N. T. by the telic and infinitive there is never expressed the objective, divinely-arranged aim (which is denoted by and ), but always the subjective purpose, which one has in an action (Mat 5:28 ; Mat 6:1 ; Mat 13:30 ; Mat 23:5 ; Mar 13:22 ; Eph 6:11 ; 1Th 2:9 ; 2Th 3:8 ; Jas 3:3 , Elzevir; also Mat 26:12 ). The point of comparison is the “tecte agere” (Fritzsche), which was done by Moses with the purpose specified through the veiling of his face (not through the figures in which he veiled the truth, as de Wette, following Mosheim, imports), but is not done by the teachers of the gospel, since they go to work in their ministry freely and frankly (2Co 3:12 ). The context furnishes nothing further than this, not even what Hofmann finds in the . . . . . . [165] As little are we to suppose arbitrarily, with Klpper, that Paul had in mind not so much Moses himself as his successors (?), the Judaists .
.] , by its very connection with ., is fixed to the meaning end , and not final aim (Osiander) or completion ; [166] and . must be the same as was meant by in the application intended by Paul of the general proposition in 2Co 3:11 . Consequently it cannot be masculine (Luther, Vatablus; even Rckert is not disinclined to this view), nor can it denote the Mosaic religion , the end of which is Christ (Rom 10:4 ), as, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, most expositors, including Flatt and Osiander, think, against which, however, even Moses’ own prophecy (Deu 18:15 ), according to the Messianic interpretation then universal, would militate; but it must be the ministry of Moses, which is passing away , see on 2Co 3:11 . The Israelites were not intended, in Paul’s opinion, at that time to contemplate the end of this ministry, which was to cease through the ministry of the gospel; therefore Moses veiled his face. [167] By what means (according to the apostle’s view), if Moses had not veiled himself, they would have seen the end of his office, is apparent from 2Co 3:7 , namely, by the disappearance of the splendour, the departure of which would have typically presented to them the termination of the of Moses. [168] But not on this account are we to explain (with the scholiast in Matthaei and others, including Stolz, Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, [169] Hofmann) . of the transient splendour itself (2Co 3:7 ), which is forbidden by 2Co 3:11 , and would be a confusion of the type and antitype.
[165] “If the apostle had found his calling only in publishing to others traditional doctrines , he would have thought, like Moses, that he must carefully distinguish between what he was and what he had to teach , that he must keep his person in subordination to his task , in order not to injure the effect of what he taught.”
[166] So Isenberg in the Luther. Zeitschr . 1867, p. 240 ff., who, regarding . as the genitive of apposition , brings out the sense: “the transitory office of the O. T. as the completion , after which no other institution could be expected.” Thus there is ascribed to Moses exactly the opposite of what the simple words say; Paul would have written something like . The genitive of apposition would here give the meaningless thought: “the end, which is the transitory.”
[167] Paul deviates, therefore, from the representation of Exo 34 in not abiding simply by the statement, that Moses veiled his face because the eyes of the Israelites could not endure the radiance but, in connection with his typological way of regarding the fact, apprehends it in the sense that Moses was induced to veil himself by the subjective motive of keeping out of the people’s sight the end of his ministry of law.
[168] It might be objected to our whole explanation, that, if Moses had not veiled himself, the people would still not have read the end of the Mosaic ministry from the departing splendour (Billroth), nay, that Moses himself did not find anything of the kind in it. But we have not here a supplement of the account in Exo 34 (Krummel), but a rabbinic-allegorical exposition ( ) of the circumstances, which as such is withdrawn from historical criticism, but nevertheless is in accordance with the striking aim which the apostle has in view. This aim was to make the of the stewardship of the gospel-ministry conspicuous by contrast, like the light by shadow.
[169] Who explains it as if not ., but simply , were used. Ewald conceives the disappearance of the splendour as ensuing gradually during the age, and finally at the death of Moses, as Grotius also on ver. 7 represents it.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
Ver. 13. Could not stedfastly, &c. ] Could not clearly see Christ the end of the law, Rom 10:4 ; Gal 3:14 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
13. ] , and (do) not (place a vail on our face, so Mar 15:8 , ( ) . See Winer, edn. 6, 64, i. 1 b.) as Moses placed a vail on his face, in order that (see below) the sons of Israel might not look on the termination of the transitory (viz. his , see 2Co 3:11 , but spoken of as : ‘the glory of his ministration’). A mistake has been made with regard to the history in Exo 34:33-35 , which has considerably obscured the understanding of this verse. It is commonly assumed, that Moses spoke to the Israelites, having the vail on his face ; and this is implied in our version ‘till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.’ But the LXX (and Heb.) gave a different account: , . He spoke to them without the vail, with his face shining and glorified: when he had done speaking , he placed the vail on his face: and that, not because they were afraid to look on him, but as here, that they might not look on the end , or the fading, of that transitory glory ; that they might only see it as long as it was the credential of his ministry, and then it might be withdrawn from their eyes. Thus the declaration of God’s will to them was not , but was interrupted and broken by intervals of concealment, which ours is not. The opposition is twofold: (1) between the vailed and the unvailed ministry, quoad the mere fact of concealment in the one case, and openness in the other: (2) between the ministry which was suspended by the vailing, that its might not be seen, and that which proceeds , having no termination . On the common interpretation, Commentators have found an almost insuperable difficulty in . The usual escape from it has been to render it, ‘so that the Israelities could not,’ as in 2Co 3:7 . De Wette somewhat modifies this, and sees in it the divine purpose: ‘in order that,’ but not in the intention of Moses, but of God’s Providence. But both these renderings are ungrammatical. with an infinitive never signifies the mere result , nor, as Meyer rightly remarks against De Wette, the objective purpose, but always the subjective purpose present to the mind of the actor : he refers to Mat 5:28 ; Mat 6:1 ; Mat 13:30 ; Mat 23:5 ; Mar 13:22 ; Eph 6:11 ; 1Th 2:9 ; 2Th 3:8 ; Jas 3:3 (rec.); and Mat 26:12 (see my note there). I may remark also, that the narrative in Exodus, the LXX version of which the Apostle here closely follows (see below on 2Co 3:16 ), implies that the brightness of Moses’s face had place not on that one occasion only, but throughout his whole ministry between the Lord and the people. When he ceased speaking to them , he put on the vail ; but whensoever he went in before the Lord to speak to Him, the vail was removed till he came out, and had spoken to the Israelites all that the Lord had commanded him , during which speaking they saw that his face shone, and after which speaking he again put on the vail . So that the vail was the symbol of concealment and transitoriness: the part revealed they might see: beyond that, they could not: the ministry was a broken, interrupted one; its end was wrapped in obscurity.
In the . we must not think, as some Commentators have done, of Christ ( Rom 10:4 ), any further than it may be hinted in the background that when the law came to an end, He appeared.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
2Co 3:13 . . . .: and (we put no veil upon our face) as Moses put a veil upon his face . The construction is broken, but the sense is obvious; cf. , for a somewhat similar abbreviation, Mar 15:8 , . . . .: to the end that the children of Israel should not look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away, sc. , the evanescence of the glory on Moses’ face. The A.V., “could not steadfastly look to the end of that which was abolished,” evidently takes as standing for Christ, the fulfilment of the Mosaic law (Rom 10:4 ). But this is not suitable to the context. with an infinitive is sometimes found to express the aim or intention ( never the mere result), as, e.g. , Eph 6:11 , 1Th 2:9 , 2Th 3:8 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
vail. Greek kalununa. Only here and in verses: 2Co 3:14, 2Co 3:15, 2Co 3:16.
over = upon. Greek. epi. App-104. See Exo 34:33.
that, &c. = with a view to (Greek. pros. App-104.) the children of Israel’s not gazing to the end.
to. Greek. eis. App-104.
abolished = being done away, as in 2Co 3:7.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
13.] , and (do) not (place a vail on our face,-so Mar 15:8, () . See Winer, edn. 6, 64, i. 1 b.) as Moses placed a vail on his face, in order that (see below) the sons of Israel might not look on the termination of the transitory (viz. his , see 2Co 3:11, but spoken of as : the glory of his ministration). A mistake has been made with regard to the history in Exo 34:33-35, which has considerably obscured the understanding of this verse. It is commonly assumed, that Moses spoke to the Israelites, having the vail on his face; and this is implied in our version-till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. But the LXX (and Heb.) gave a different account: , . He spoke to them without the vail, with his face shining and glorified: when he had done speaking, he placed the vail on his face: and that, not because they were afraid to look on him, but as here, that they might not look on the end, or the fading, of that transitory glory; that they might only see it as long as it was the credential of his ministry, and then it might be withdrawn from their eyes. Thus the declaration of Gods will to them was not , but was interrupted and broken by intervals of concealment, which ours is not. The opposition is twofold: (1) between the vailed and the unvailed ministry, quoad the mere fact of concealment in the one case, and openness in the other: (2) between the ministry which was suspended by the vailing, that its might not be seen, and that which proceeds , having no termination. On the common interpretation, Commentators have found an almost insuperable difficulty in . The usual escape from it has been to render it, so that the Israelities could not, as in 2Co 3:7. De Wette somewhat modifies this, and sees in it the divine purpose: in order that, but not in the intention of Moses, but of Gods Providence. But both these renderings are ungrammatical. with an infinitive never signifies the mere result, nor, as Meyer rightly remarks against De Wette, the objective purpose, but always the subjective purpose present to the mind of the actor: he refers to Mat 5:28; Mat 6:1; Mat 13:30; Mat 23:5; Mar 13:22; Eph 6:11; 1Th 2:9; 2Th 3:8; Jam 3:3 (rec.); and Mat 26:12 (see my note there). I may remark also, that the narrative in Exodus, the LXX version of which the Apostle here closely follows (see below on 2Co 3:16), implies that the brightness of Mosess face had place not on that one occasion only, but throughout his whole ministry between the Lord and the people. When he ceased speaking to them, he put on the vail; but whensoever he went in before the Lord to speak to Him, the vail was removed till he came out, and had spoken to the Israelites all that the Lord had commanded him, during which speaking they saw that his face shone,-and after which speaking he again put on the vail. So that the vail was the symbol of concealment and transitoriness: the part revealed they might see: beyond that, they could not: the ministry was a broken, interrupted one; its end was wrapped in obscurity.
In the . we must not think, as some Commentators have done, of Christ (Rom 10:4), any further than it may be hinted in the background that when the law came to an end, He appeared.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
2Co 3:13. , and not) supply we are, or we do.-, a veil) so LXX., Exo 34:33.- ) [according as, because that] denotes congruity. Comp. Mat 19:8 : [ , by reason of, because of the hardness of heart, by reason of the fact]: for , the not being able to look stedfastly, took place before the veil was put on, but subsequent to the splendour of Moses [the glory of his countenance], 2Co 3:7 : wherefore, there, is used [because their not being able to look stedfastly at him was subsequent to and the consequence of his glory.] What is affirmed of Moses is wholly denied by Paul respecting the ministers of the New Testament, namely, the putting on of a veil, lest the Israelites should look upon them. Often something is inserted in the protasis, which in the proper application is intended to belong to the apodosis. So in 2Co 3:7 we have ; here, . Here to wit the act is denied, not the power. The power was wanting to all [the Israelites] in the case of Moses; to some [viz. to them that are lost, 2Co 4:3] in the case of the apostles.- , to the end of that which is abolished) Paul turns the words to an allegory. That, which is abolished, has its end in Christ, 2Co 3:14, at the end: Rom 10:4, the law tends to and is terminated in Him, [Christ].
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
2Co 3:13
2Co 3:13
and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing away:-When Moses came down from the mount after his interview with Jehovah, his face shone with such a glory that the people could not look steadfastly upon it, and when Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face. (Exo 34:33). This is interpreted to mean that they could not look steadfastly to the end of that dispensation and see Jesus, the end of the law. Their vision was too weak. [The truth concerning mans redemption, Paul says, in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit. (Eph 3:5). It was not, therefore, consistent with the ministry of Moses to use the openness in communicating the doctrines of redemption which is the glory of the ministry of Christ.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
which: Exo 34:33-35
could not: 2Co 3:18
to the: Rom 10:4, Gal 3:23, Gal 3:24, Eph 2:14, Eph 2:15, Col 2:17, Heb 10:1-9
Reciprocal: Exo 34:29 – the skin Psa 119:18 – wondrous Son 2:9 – he standeth Isa 25:7 – he will
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Co 3:13. Paul has been showing some contrasts between the old and new laws, and another one is shown here. He does it by making a figurative use of the vail that Moses put over his face. That vail was a literal one and was used as a literal shield for the eves of the children of Israel. But as the glare on the face of Moses was a symbol of the glory of the old covenant, the hiding of that glare constituted (in Paul’s figurative use of it) a concealment of the glory of that covenant. That covenant, though glorious, was destined to be done away, which truth was not realized by the children of Israel. Hence their failure to see the glory of that covenant that was des-tinued to come to an end, is used by the apostle to symbolize their failure to realize the truth, namely, that it was to be abolished. And not as Moses, etc., means that Paul would not try to hide part of the glory of the new covenant, but instead he would “use great plainness [boldness] of speech” (verse 12).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
2Co 3:13. And are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look stedfastly to the end of that which was passing away. Here again the reference is to what is said of Moses in Exo 34:33-35. But as this is expressed with a little obscurity, critics are divided as to the meaning. In Exo 34:33, our Version says, And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face. But the LXX. translates, And after Moses had ceased speaking to them, he put a veil on his face. Most modern critics, taking this to be the true sense of the passage, and the apostles view of it too, understand him to mean that Moses, ere he closed his discourse, veiled his face, that the people might not see his radiance vanishing quite away. No one would naturally read the passage so, and it is far from natural; nor does the apostle say this. He says that Moses veiled his face that they might not look stedfastly unto the end ( ) of that which was passing away; that is, as we understand it, Moses, seeing they were afraid to come near him on account of his radiant countenance, veiled it while speaking to them (only removing the veil when he went in again before the Lord); and the import of what the apostle says, as we read his words, is, Bright as was the glory of Moses economy, like that of his countenance when he came forth from having this disclosed to him from the excellent glory, and transitory as it waslike the glory of his own countenanceyet it was too bright for their gaze; nor was it fitting, with their spiritual incapacity, that they should see to the end of it:to them it behoved to be a veiled economy, like the veiled face of the lawgiver while giving it forth to them.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Seeing Christ’s Glory with the Veil Removed Just as Moses used a veil to cover the glory shining on his face ( Exo 34:33 ), so he used types and shadows to cover the glory of the Lord. Christians can now see Christ’s glory with the veil of types and shadows taken away. In reading Moses’ law, the veil of types and shadows still covered Christ for the Jews. Their hardened hearts refused to see Christ. However, they could see him in the New Testament ( 2Co 3:13-14 ).
Those rejecting Christ still fail to see him in the Old Testament. They overlook the purpose of that covenant ( Gal 3:24 ). However, those who sincerely strove to see God’s will found the veil removed. Earlier (verses 6-7) Moses was used to stand for the letter. In the same way Christ stands for the Spirit. In Him is freedom ( 2Co 3:15-17 ).
One of the greatest freedoms enjoyed by those in the New Covenant is seeing Christ clearly. Christians see His glory reflected in the New Covenant and their faces are made to shine with His glory as Moses’ face shone ( 2Co 3:18 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing away:
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 13
Put a veil over his face; symbolical of the mystery under which spiritual truth was veiled, in the old dispensation; so that the children of Israel could not understand the true end and design of these temporary ordinances, which were enjoined upon them.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
3:13 {4} And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the {m} end of that which is abolished:
(4) He expounds along the way the allegory of Moses’ covering, which was a token of the darkness and weakness that is in men, who were rather dulled by the bright shining of the Law then given. And this covering was taken away by the coming of Christ, who enlightens the hearts, and turns them to the Lord, that we may be brought from the slavery of this blindness, and set in the liberty of the light by the power of Christ’s Spirit.
(m) Into the very bottom of Moses’ ministry.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
One meaning of parrhesia ("boldness") is barefacedness. Paul could be barefaced in his confidence because of the permanent character of the covenant under which he ministered. Moses, in contrast, could not. He ministered with a literal veil over his face much of the time (Exo 34:29-35). He removed the veil when he spoke with the people (Exo 34:33) and when he spoke with God in the tabernacle. He wore it at other times evidently to teach the Israelites’ their unworthiness to behold God’s glory. Paul used this difference in ministry to illustrate the superior nature of the New Covenant.
Moses also put a veil over his face so the departure of the fading glory that he had received would not discourage the Israelites. The Old Testament does not say that was his reason. It implies that Moses covered his face so the Israelites would not see the glory that was there. Perhaps Paul meant that the consequence of Moses’ putting the veil over his face was that the Israelites could not see the fading of his facial glory. [Note: J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 4 vols., vol. 3: Syntax, by Nigel Turner, p. 144.] Paul’s implication then was that Christians can behold God’s glory more fully in the New Covenant, and it will not fade away.