[quote author="agapetos"]Thanks everyone for your comments.

It’s been almost three months since I wrote this, and I was hoping for more commentary, but I think everyone’s pretty busy and know that there are difficult things going on, as well as time-occupying things (such as ones in little diapers who make dinosaur noises recently).

I wrote down some notes on this and I think they’re stuffed away in a shelf somewhere, so I’ll need to dig them out to give the thoughts that came to me out of this.

Today, however, I wrote something to someone else on the passage and realized that I have been giving Moses the benefit of the doubt in this incident.  I wrote:

“Paul ... says he has renounced secret & shameful ways & deception, implying that Moses used such ways when he covered his face to hide the fading of the glory of the Ten Commandments [the Old Covenant].”

I realized that when I put together this topic, I did not consult Chapter 4!  Specifically, 2 Corinthians 4:1-2.  Paul makes his commentary on what he thinks of what Moses did in these verses.  It’s part of a whole commentary on those “ways” which begins in 2 Corinthians 2:17.

So I find myself a little shocked now because I didn’t realize that Paul gave his opinion of what Moses did:

“secret”,
“shameful”,
“deception”,
perhaps “distortion”
and “not setting forth the truth plainly”. 

Or in the words of the ESV:

“For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ…

“...Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word…

(And instead, by contrast...)

“...but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.”

Paul has sandwiched Moses’ hiding of his secret between these words as an example of practicing insincerity, underhanded, cunning and disgraceful ways.

What do you all think now? 

(I need to find my notes, I think.)

Blessings in Jesus,
Ramone

Ramone,

With all due respect, I cannot accept your conclusions of what Paul was saying in 2 Corinthians 4:1-2. What evidence is there to even suggest Paul is referring to a good and faithful prophet of God in this way? Moses did not act in cunning and underhanded ways.

This is a real stretch to try to bring your zealousness for New Covenant theology in order to perform eisogesis of scripture in this manner.

Those who still hold the Decalogue in high esteem are not blinded by a veil as you keep suggesting.

But thanks for your participation on 4TG, but we just have to agree to disagree.

Stan

Hi Stan,

Actually, no, this is not “a real stretch to try to bring your zealousness for New Covenant theology in order to perform eisogesis of scripture in this manner.” Not at all, brother.

I honestly shared because I was honestly surprised to discover what I was reading.  Please try not to read other motives into it.

What I wrote still stands contextually.

Blessings in Christ,
Ramone

I believe Paul’s reference in 2 Corinthians 4:1-2 is to false teachers and “peddlers of the word” (2 Corinthians 2:17) who came with “letters of recommendation” (2 Corinthians 3:1) and who “boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart” (2 Corinthians 5:12) and who accused Paul and his companions of “walking according to the flesh” (2 Corinthians 10:2), and of these men Paul pledged to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Throughout his Corinthian letters, Paul is contending with false teachers who sought to undermine Paul’s authority and ministry.

Aside from Paul’s opposition from and to various false preachers in Corinth and elsewhere, Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 3:6-7 that the “letter killeth” and of the “ministration of death, written and engraved in stones” is stunning.

I have posted a thread at R/S asking for feedback on this verse via EGW’s writings. I performed a quick search of her writings at the Estate’s webpage but did not find anything. I wonder what she thought of it. 

Hi Glennspring,

I don’t think Ellen White ever understood what the Bible said about “the letter” or the engraving on stones.  By the time she may have finally reached those verses, the SDA theology would have already been set in stone anyway (so to speak).  The Sabbath position would have already been established.  In other words, it would have to be defended regardless of what Scripture actually said.  That is why Adventist theology is always searching for alternate explanations to what is written ... whether it is about the Sabbath, the Sanctuary, Law, wine, or a host of other things.  What is plainly written cannot be accepted because the early Adventists made foundational beliefs.  So in order to keep those beliefs, modern Adventists must search for other explanations to what Scripture says clearly.

This process of searching for alternate explanations began when the Millerites rejected the gospels’ warnings about date-setting.  It was at that point that they chose to continue with their own beliefs regardless of what Scripture said.  The trend continued and its fruit developed the Sanctuary doctrine, the Investigative Judgment, and many, many other things.  And the trend continues today in modern Adventism.

Anyhow, this is off topic, sorry.

I know Paul was upset at false teachers here and there, but he does seem to directly implicate Moses in the disgracefulness or shamefulness of “hiding” things.  Paul said:

“Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end [fading away].”

His emphasis here is, “We are not like Moses.” Because Moses hid some of the truth.  Instead, Paul says, we are bold!  Because Paul spoke of this kind of shady dealing or preaching before and after the “Moses” section, it does seem like he is actually citing Moses as an example of dishonest preaching.

I still haven’t fully figured out the implications of this.

I should add that I believe what Hebrews 3 says of Moses.  However, I also believe what 2 Corinthians 3 says about Moses.  BOTH are true. 

All blessings in JESUS!
Ramone

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

Fading glory

As a former engineer I look at this phenomenon from a ‘cause and effect’ view. Moses went up the mountain to be in the presence of God with the result of having a ‘shining face’. He went back down the mountain, leaving the presence of God, with the result of ‘fading glory’. Could Paul have been comparing the difference of the presence of God in the OT to the NT? My impression is that Jesus’ promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit added a new dimension to the presence of God. Unlike Moses, we don’t have to “go up the mountain’ to be in God’s presence, God dwells in us and His glory never fades.

?

John

Posted anonymously by: John Douglas

Am I the only one?

There are times when I simply cannot decipher the security words. Just now I had to exit 3 times to get something I could read.

John

Hi John,

Those security words can be tough, but they are only for anonymous posters. If you register for an account (http://www.forthegospel.org/user/register) you will not need to decipher them again. Another advantage of registering is that your posts will show up immediately after you post them, rather than waiting for manual approval.

Good thoughts on the passage in question, by the way. I have a few more observations but I must wait until later (hopefully today) to share them.

Greg

Well that’s embarrassing! I registered 19 weeks ago — never paid any attention to login since. 

Jonvil, I’m glad you figured out how to log in! It’s much easier to post this way.

Regarding 2 Cor 4 and the comments on this thread, I must concur with Glenn’s analysis. It is not at all clear that Paul is indicting Moses in 2 Cor 4:1-2; the context of the entire book is warning against false apostles and highlighting the superiority of the new covenant compared to the old. Ramone, if we take the passage the way you’ve described it, Moses is guilty of “craftiness” and “adulterating the word of God” (from the NASB). The traits you are ascribing to Moses do not mesh with how Jesus referred to Moses’ role in redemptive history:

“Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”” (John 5:45-47 ESV)

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus invokes Moses again:

“If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” (Luke 16:31 ESV)

If Moses is guilty of being deceitful and “tampering with the word”, why does Jesus single him out as the one who could convince the world of Jesus’ mission? It just doesn’t make any sense.

But if Paul is referring to the false apostles as Glenn said, this passage makes perfect sense.

Additionally, Paul digresses in 2 Corinthians 3 to compare the teachings of the false apostles with his own, contrasting the old and new covenants. He uses the example of Moses’ fading glory as an illustration of the fading glory of the old covenant, and also as a warning that those who are looking to this covenant for salvation are putting their faith in something that doesn’t have sustaining power. The false teachers were pointing to the law for salvation, but as Jesus said in John 5:39, it is the law (and the entirety of the Jewish scriptures) that pointed to Jesus himself. In this sense, people who were focused on the glory of the law had a veiled understanding of what the law pointed to–Jesus Christ. Those who learned the law’s lessons–being crushed by the “ministry of condemnation"–were able to see with unveiled eyes the majesty of Jesus Christ because they could clearly see the need for a Savior. Additionally, they were able to identify Jesus in the very Scriptures they were reading. By their unwavering focus on the legal requirements for salvation, the false teachers fundamentally obscured the messianic passages of the Old Testament and the veil remained firmly in place.

Instead of being a blanket denunciation of the Decalogue as some would have us believe, 2 Corinthians 3 is a condemnation of the false apostles who pointed to the old covenant for salvation instead of boldly proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Incidentally, the gospel would not be good news if the law was not first given to condemn us. Likewise, there would be no understanding of our need for Jesus if we did not first have a schoolmaster (the law) to drive us to Him (Galatians 3:23-26 KJV). It is His sustaining power through the Holy Spirit that never wavers, and it is His unveiled glory that never fades.

Greg

Hi Greg,

I had these same thoughts as you described:

If Moses is guilty of being deceitful and “tampering with the word”, why does Jesus single him out as the one who could convince the world of Jesus’ mission? It just doesn’t make any sense.

I thought of the same passage in John as well.

But no matter how I explain it, the passage Paul wrote speaks for itself.  Right there between his condemnation of shady preaching, Paul says, “We are not like Moses, who would...”.  His implication of Moses in at least some of these things is inescapable.

I don’t say that all of those things apply to Moses.  And I think it is resonable because we are not talking about Moses’ whole life here.  We’re talking actually about his one deed of hiding the fading glory of the Old Covenant from the Israelites.  Although Moses repeated this deed every time he put on the veil, it does not appear that Paul is referring to the “whole” of Moses or his whole life.  Yet it is clear that Paul is looking down on what Moses did and saying, “Look here, Corinthians, at what Moses did---we are not like that!”

Paul does make a comparison between Moses and the false teachers because they both handled God’s word (or glory, in Moses’ case) without being completely honest.  Actually, no, not just “glory”, but His word, too, because the Ten Words were the words of God to the Israelites, the words of the Covenant.  And Moses hid the fact that they had a fading glory.  So he did not give God’s word to them with complete honesty.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find my old notes on this topic after briefly searching for them this morning before work, but I think I can at least give an introductory gist to what I’m thinking about this.

You had said:

But if Paul is referring to the false apostles as Glenn said, this passage makes perfect sense.

This passage presents something that is simply beyond what we would like to see.  We don’t want to see this because it stretches our theological comfort zone.  It is like those fire & brimstone Psalms that talk about smashing an enemy’s babies against the rocks, etc.  These things must be accepted, but part of accepting them means we must struggle with them.  We know who God is, we know what He is like, but we can’t search for alternate explanations to what is clearly written.  If we face it head on and struggle with it, though, He can resolve it for us—and where there seemed to be a contradiction, there His glory will be revealed!

It is for this reason that I want to resist exonerating Moses.  I believe, as I said briefly before, that both things about Moses are true: 1) that he was faithful as a servant in God’s house, and 2) that he shamefully hid part of the truth about the covenant of God’s Ten Words.

Number 2 is true and yet number 1 is also true.

This presents a problem to our conventional way of “judging” faithfulness.  We want Moses to have been perfect, basically.  We can’t imagine that God would be pleased with him if he did such a thing.  But if we read Paul honestly, we see that Paul truly does see a big problem with what Moses did.

So what, then, shall we say?  Moses acted shamefully, but God did not strike him down.  More than that, God still found Moses to be one of His most faithful servants.  God loved Moses and was with him, and after Moses died, God would not leave him in the grave, but took him home to Himself as Jude tells us.

I believe that the shameful act Moses did was sovereignly allowed by God.  God did not endorse it, but God allowed it because it would later speak volumes about something we all needed to understand.  It would become a parable, an example, an illustration and a picture of a truth that we may have not seen or otherwise understood.

What Moses did was somehow a reaction of human nature when faced with such a situation.  It is our nature to hide, to veil, to run away.  What did Adam and Eve do when they discovered they were naked?  They covered up with fig leaves!  What did Cain do after he killed Abel?  He buried Abel (hiding him).  We resist coming out in the open—walking into the Light.  Not only because the Light is powerful and piercing, but we resist also because we are afraid of others seeing our weakness.  We are afraid of being shamed in front of others.  And we are afraid of admitting our shame to ourselves, as well.

“We are not like Moses”, Paul says, but rather “We are very bold.”

The opposite of boldness is timidity.  Moses was afraid, ashamed.  Maybe he was afraid to admit to that sinking doubt inside?  That doubt that, “Maybe we/I can’t do this Ten Words, maybe we/I can’t keep this covenant.”

Like Adventism, maybe he was afraid to face what he knew was true deep, deep inside.  In Adventism we were afraid to face that sinking doubt we had inside that Adventism was wrong and had started wrong and was not more special than other churches.  We maximized the glory and history of Adventism in order to convince ourselves and silence our inner doubt.  It reminds me of what a friend (named Glenn) said about what he felt about Muslims while working with them in the Middle East—deep inside they know God is not with them.

“Moses was faithful as a servant”, the book of Hebrews says.  “But Christ was faithful as a son.”

A servant is hired and his continued employment depends on his work being up to par.  As a servant, perhaps Moses could not completely bear to see the truth of his works and their fading glory?  Perhaps he had to stifle his inner doubt in order to go on?  Perhaps deep inside he knew that man/he was unable to keep a covenant with God if man’s/his faithfulness were part of the deal?

Whatever the case, one thing I remember of my notes stands out in my memory and I can relate it here:

I believe Moses was incredibly relieved when he got to heaven!

I think he breathed a sigh of relief and probably broke down crying when he saw God.

Whenever we cover up and hide something (from ourselves, from others, from God), maybe we do so because we think we have to, but it is terribly heavy.  It is hard to bear and we have to push ourselves to go on.  What a relief to finally rest in Jesus!  To let go of the fig leaves, the veil, and just rest!  To be naked and not ashamed!  To be covered by Him!  To know that He does not condemn us, but that He has forgiven us and loved us!  To know that He has loved us even though we have failed Him and have not obeyed Him perfectly!

I wrote more in the notes, but I think that’s enough for today, and that “note” is a nice place to stop for now.

Blessings unveiled--and at rest!--in Jesus!
Ramone

[quote author="agapetos"]
This passage presents something that is simply beyond what we would like to see. We don’t want to see this because it stretches our theological comfort zone.

This is not my experience in reading Paul’s words.

[quote author="agapetos"]
But if we read Paul honestly, we see that Paul truly does see a big problem with what Moses did.

Am I reading Paul dishonestly?

Greg

P.S. I should add that I am not moving onto “blanket denunciations of the Decalogue”. 

I am looking at what Moses did and inviting everyone to look at the passage without trying to read things into it.  I’m inviting everyone to struggle with what is written, because I believe it is part of how we all must learn to study the Bible—not to water down its words, but to accept what is written in the trust that God will show forth His glory even when it causes our theological comfort zones to be jarred loose.

I know there are some who likely suspect that I am doing this to rush onto prove something about the Decalogue or denounce it, but I am not going there now.  I’m looking simply at Moses.  If there is something to be discovered about the Decalogue, then it will come in due time.

For now, though, I invite others to look at this passage and face what Moses did and “struggle” with it instead of rushing to find alternate explanations (or instead of rushing to find Ramone’s ulterior motives and ‘head him off at the pass’).

[quote author="agapateos"]
...I believe it is part of how we all must learn to study the Bible—not to water down its words…

Did I water down the words?

[quote author="agapetos"]
I invite others to look at this passage and face what Moses did and “struggle” with it instead of rushing to find alternate explanations (or instead of rushing to find Ramone’s ulterior motives and ‘head him off at the pass’)

This is not what I’m doing. I disagree with your interpretation of the passage, but I’ll let you pass.

Greg

But if we read Paul honestly, we see that Paul truly does see a big problem with what Moses did.

Am I reading Paul dishonestly?

It’s a figure of speech.  This is what I mean by “honestly” reading Paul: I believe many times we all choose to read what we want to read instead of facing and struggling with what is actually written.  We do this because we are naturally afraid of the implications of what is written.  This is a human problem, and I have done it too, and no doubt am still doing it with many things.

Actually, the very act of what Moses did is an illustration of this! 

*Wow* I’m kind of shocked.  I didn’t realize that this paralled it!

In the same way, it seems Moses was also afraid--instead of bold--afraid of looking clearly at the fact that the Decalogue’s glory was fading.  Perhaps he was afraid of seeing that personally, or perhaps he was afraid of everyone else (the Israelites) seeing it, or maybe both.

While alive, Moses believed his righteousness was by the law (see Deuteronomy 6:25).  It must’ve been a restful relief and tearful reunion when he met Christ and was freed from his burden!  When he finally was taken home to be with God, Moses was released from the burden of hiding from what he was afraid to see (or what he was afraid others would see).  Afraid of being naked and ashamed while alive, he found himself after death instead clothed and saved by the love and righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Like Moses, we too are often afraid of staring at things head-on because deep inside we know that their glory is fading away.  We don’t want to see that.  We don’t want to feel naked.  But we can learn from Moses—we can trust that just as God loved him and took him home, God also loves us and understands our fears of seeing things, our fears of being exposed.  Paul’s words (and those in 1st John 1:7-9) show us that we don’t have to be afraid.  We can step boldly into the Light and be exposed, and He will forgive us and comfort us, because His blood has been shed for us to cover us and clothe us.

When we encounter difficult passages, we don’t have to look for alternate explanations.  We don’t have to be afraid of what Paul says about what Moses did.  We know that God loved Moses, and we know that God does not save us because of our works—so we should know that Moses was likewise accepted not because of his works, but because of God’s loving grace.  We don’t have to be afraid of our image of Moses being shattered a little bit by what Paul revealed about him.  Like John the Baptist, we can allow Moses to “decrease” in the faith that with his decrease, God will be increased in our sight and in our understanding.  By unveiling our reading of 2 Cor.3, we can trust that God’s glory will shine even brighter than if we veiled our reading in order to preserve our image of Moses.

Hope this makes sense.