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:
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeChrysostomClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
(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 Exodus 34:33, or an interpretation of the Hebrew answering to that version. (See Note on 2Corinthians 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 see—this is St. Paul’s way of allegorising the fact stated—that 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 Romans 10:4, that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness;” or, in 1Timothy 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 Apostle’s 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.

3:12-18 It is the duty of the ministers of the gospel to use great plainness, or clearness, of speech. The Old Testament believers had only cloudy and passing glimpses of that glorious Saviour, and unbelievers looked no further than to the outward institution. But the great precepts of the gospel, believe, love, obey, are truths stated as clearly as possible. And the whole doctrine of Christ crucified, is made as plain as human language can make it. Those who lived under the law, had a veil upon their hearts. This veil is taken away by the doctrines of the Bible about Christ. When any person is converted to God, then the veil of ignorance is taken away. The condition of those who enjoy and believe the gospel is happy, for the heart is set at liberty to run the ways of God's commandments. They have light, and with open face they behold the glory of the Lord. Christians should prize and improve these privileges. We should not rest contented without knowing the transforming power of the gospel, by the working of the Spirit, bringing us to seek to be like the temper and tendency of the glorious gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and into union with Him. We behold Christ, as in the glass of his word; and as the reflection from a mirror causes the face to shine, the faces of Christians shine also.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. Exodus 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 2 Corinthians 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" πρός τὸ 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 (ἀτενίσαι atenisai); see the note on 2 Corinthians 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 - (εἰς τὸ τέλος 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 Romans 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, τοῦ καταργουμένου 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.

13. We use no disguise, "as Moses put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel might not look steadfastly upon the end of that which was to be done away" [Ellicott and others]. The view of Ex 34:30-35, according to the Septuagint is adopted by Paul, that Moses in going in to speak to God removed the veil till he came out and had spoken to the people; and then when he had done speaking, he put on the veil that they might not look on the end, or the fading, of that transitory glory. The veil was the symbol of concealment, put on directly after Moses' speaking; so that God's revelations by him were interrupted by intervals of concealment [ALFORD]. But Alford's view does not accord with 2Co 3:7; the Israelites "could not look steadfastly on the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance." Plainly Moses' veil was put on because of their not having been able to "look steadfastly at him." Paul here (2Co 3:13) 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 look steadfastly at (Christ, Ro 10:4) 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 has Himself. Because the Jews would not see, God judicially gave them up so as not to see. The glory of Moses' face is antitypically Christ s glory shining behind the veil of legal ordinances. The veil which has been taken off to the believer is left on to the unbelieving Jew, so that he should not see (Isa 6:10; Ac 28:26, 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 to them until the Spirit comes to take away the veil (2Co 3:14-17) [Cameron]. We have the history to which this passage of the apostle relateth, in Exodus 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 Moses’s 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 Father’s glory. Moses’s covering himself with a veil, signifies God’s 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. 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 Exodus 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".

{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.

2 Corinthians 3:13. A negative amplification of the πολλῇ παῤῥησίᾳ χρώμεθα by comparison with the opposite conduct of Mose.

καὶ οὐ] sc. τίθεμεν κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ἡμῶν, 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]; Kühner, 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 Exodus 34:33-35.

πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι κ.τ.λ.] 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 τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένον (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 Luke 18:1; and Schulz and Flatt, following older commentators, explain that πρὸς κ.τ.λ. 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 πολλῇ παῤῥ. χρ. of 2 Corinthians 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 πρὸς κ.τ.λ. 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, Isaiah 6:9; Matthew 13:11 ff.; Luke 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 (Galatians 4:1 ff.). Finally, the argument of usage is also against de Wette, for in the N. T. by the telic πρὸς τό and infinitive there is never expressed the objective, divinely-arranged aim (which is denoted by ἵνα and ὅπως), but always the subjective purpose, which one has in an action (Matthew 5:28; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 13:30; Matthew 23:5; Mark 13:22; Ephesians 6:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8; Jam 3:3, Elzevir; also Matthew 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 (2 Corinthians 3:12). The context furnishes nothing further than this, not even what Hofmann finds in the κ. οὐ καθαπ. Μ. κ.τ.λ.[165] As little are we to suppose arbitrarily, with Klöpper, that Paul had in mind not so much Moses himself as his successors (?), the Judaists.

εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργ.] τὸ τέλος, by its very connection with τοῦ καταργ., is fixed to the meaning end, and not final aim (Osiander) or completion;[166] and τοῦ καταργ. must be the same as was meant by τὸ καταργούμενον in the application intended by Paul of the general proposition in 2 Corinthians 3:11. Consequently it cannot be masculine (Luther, Vatablus; even Rückert is not disinclined to this view), nor can it denote the Mosaic religion, the end of which is Christ (Romans 10:4), as, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, most expositors, including Flatt and Osiander, think, against which, however, even Moses’ own prophecy (Deuteronomy 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 2 Corinthians 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 2 Corinthians 3:7, namely, by the disappearance of the splendour, the departure of which would have typically presented to them the termination of the διακονία 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) ΤῸ ΚΑΤΑΡΓ. of the transient splendour itself (2 Corinthians 3:7), which is forbidden by 2 Corinthians 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 τοῦ καταργ. 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 εἰς τὸ καταργούμενον ὡς τὸ τέλειον. The genitive of apposition would here give the meaningless thought: “the end, which is the transitory.”

[167] Paul deviates, therefore, from the representation of Exodus 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 Exodus 34 (Krummel), but a rabbinic-allegorical exposition (דרש) 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 παῤῥησία of the stewardship of the gospel-ministry conspicuous by contrast, like the light by shadow.

[169] Who explains it as if not εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργ., but simply εἰς τὸ καταργούμενον, 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.2 Corinthians 3:13. καὶ οὐ καθάπερ κ.τ.λ.: 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, Mark 15:8, ὁ ὄχλος ἤρξατο αἰτεῖσθαι καθὼς ἐποίει αὐτοῖς.—πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι κ.τ.λ.: 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 τέλος as standing for Christ, the fulfilment of the Mosaic law (Romans 10:4). But this is not suitable to the context. πρὸς τό with an infinitive is sometimes found to express the aim or intention (never the mere result), as, e.g., Ephesians 6:11, 1 Thessalonians 2:9, 2 Thessalonians 3:8.13. 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 2 Corinthians 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 2 Corinthians 3:3 and 2 Corinthians 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. 2 Corinthians 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 Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 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 (Romans 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 2 Corinthians 3:7.2 Corinthians 3:13. Καὶ οὐ, and not) supply we are, or we do.—κάλυμμα, a veil) so LXX., Exodus 34:33.—πρὸς τὸ μὴ) προς [according as, because that] denotes congruity. Comp. Matthew 19:8 : [πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν, by reason of, because of the hardness of heart, by reason of the fact]: for τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι, 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”], 2 Corinthians 3:7 : wherefore, there, ὤστε 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 2 Corinthians 3:7 we have ὤστε μὴ δύνασθαι ἀτενίσαι; here, πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι. 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, 2 Corinthians 4:3] in the case of the apostles.—εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου, to the end of that which is abolished) Paul turns the words to an allegory. That, which is abolished, has its end in Christ, 2 Corinthians 3:14, at the end: Romans 10:4, the law tends to and is terminated in Him, [Christ].Verse 13. - And not as Moses. We need not act, as Moses was obliged to do, by putting any veil upon our faces while we speak. And here the image of "the veil" as completely seizes St. Paul's imagination as the image of the letter does in the first verses. Put a veil; literally, was putting, or, used to put, a veil on his face when he had finished speaking to the people. That the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished; rather, that the children of Israel might not gaze on the end of what was passing away. The object of the veil, according to St. Paul, was to prevent the Israelites from gazing on the last gleam of the covenant. In other words, he did not wish them to be witnesses of a fading glory. It is preposterous to imagine that St. Paul is here casting any blame on the conduct of Moses, as though he acted fraudulently or delusively. Moses was aware, and even told the people, float his legislation was not final (Deuteronomy 18:15 -19), but it would be quite natural that he should not wish the people to witness the gradual dimming of the lustre which, in St. Paul's view, was typical of that transitoriness. It seems, however, that St. Paul is here either

(1) following a different reading or rendering of Exodus 34:33; or

(2) is adopting some Jewish hagadah; or

(3) is giving his own turn to the narrative, as the rabbis habitually did, by way of midrash, or exposition. For from the narrative of Exodus we should not gather that it was the object of Moses to hide the disappearance of the splendour, but rather to render the light endurable. In our Authorized Version the verse runs, "till Moses had done speaking with them he put a veil on his face;" but the meaning of the original may be, "after he had done speaking with them," as the LXX. takes it and the Vulgate. The end. To interpret this of Christ, because of Romans 10:4, is an instance of the superstitious and unintelligent way in which systems are made out of a mosaic of broken texts. The foolish character of the interpretation is shown when we consider that it involves the inference that Moses put a veil on his face in order to prevent the Israelites from seeing Christi But this attempt to illustrate Scripture by catching at a similar, expression applied in a wholly different way in another part of Scripture, is one of the normal follies of scriptural interpretation. Could not steadfastly look

Rev., should not. See Exodus 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.

To the end (εἰς τὸ τέλος)

Rev., on the end. The termination.

Of that which is abolished (τοῦ καταργουμένου)

See 2 Corinthians 3:11. 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.

2 Corinthians 3:13 Interlinear
2 Corinthians 3:13 Parallel Texts

2 Corinthians 3:13 NIV
2 Corinthians 3:13 NLT
2 Corinthians 3:13 ESV
2 Corinthians 3:13 NASB
2 Corinthians 3:13 KJV

2 Corinthians 3:13 Bible Apps
2 Corinthians 3:13 Parallel
2 Corinthians 3:13 Biblia Paralela
2 Corinthians 3:13 Chinese Bible
2 Corinthians 3:13 French Bible
2 Corinthians 3:13 German Bible

Bible Hub

2 Corinthians 3:12
Top of Page
Top of Page