I see an underlying issue which is the hermeneutics implied in our looking at the text.

Imagine that instead of Paul, we have Ellen White coming to our church and preaching a message about Moses. We have, as those in Berea, to whom Paul preached the gospel, only the Old Testament. As the bereans, we are bound to examine the Scripures “to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Even the biblical authors under inspiration have no right to re-interpret the previous revelation (OT) in such a way as to be in contradiction with what it was revealed. the question is: Is Ellen White’s view of Moses sustained by the Old Testament text itself?

I replaced Paul with Ellen White because it is easy to see that this is a legitimate question when Ellen White is involved. It is a mistake to assume that, because of his gift of inspiration Paul has the right to interpret the Old Testament text in a way which does not need to harmonize with the Old Testament text. He has no right to come with a commentary at odds with the record found in the Old Testament itself.

This is why I disagree with Ramone when he says

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.

1. If Paul sees a big problem with what Moses did, there is no hint in Exodus 34:29-34 or afterwards that God was displeased with what Moses did. Paul would advocate a strange interpretation which cannot be substantiated or sustained by the Old Testament.

2. God’s dealing with Moses shows that God did not tolerate in Moses to represent Him wrongly before the people. For one single sin before the people, he was not allowed to enter the promised land. And it was not a deliberate sin of acting deceitfully, it was a manifestation of anger toward the people under the pressure of their continuous complaints. Repeating such a sin of deceit without God taking a measure is unconceivable in the light of the way God acted with Moses and with the people of Israel in the times of Exodus.

3. In the time of Exodus, God was clear that He will not tolerate sin, even in the spiritual leaders of His people.
Moses was in danger of being put to death by God because he had not circumcised his son (Exodus 4:24-26). Two sons of Aaron were burned because they dared to bring strange fire in their censer before God (Leviticus 10). Miriam, the sister of Moses was struck with leprosy because she dared to oppose Moses (Numbers 12). Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and others perished in a rebellion (Numbers 16) because they disregarded, in a similar way as Miriam, God’s order and spiritual leadership established by Him in Israel

4. The examples enumerated above are sins associated with the services of the Old Covenant. God was careful to preserve His holiness by punishing the leaders of His people in every situation in which they acted sinfully against any part of the covenant. It did not matter if they disregarded circumcision, aaronic priesthood, Moses’ mediatorship, or the correct way of performing the rituals.

In the light of these facts, it is hard to believe, even unconceivable, that God would tolerate an abusive and deceitfully conduct against His covenant, and would tolerate Moses to act repeatedly without any intervention on His part.

Giving the facts above, it is no wonder that the church had not interpreted 2 Corinthians 3 as meaning that Moses acted deceitfully. At least, I don’t know any good commentary to sustain this view, or any good scholar to agree with this indictment of Moses. The first time I encounter this interpretation, was when I first read this thread. I agree with what was said above, that this is a New Covenant theology interpretation, and has behind it the assumption that just being associated with the Old Covenant like Moses will make someone a legalist and deceiver, living a double life, hiding behind leaves like Adam and Eve.

Gabriel

Gabriel, I agree with everything you wrote. As you said, God dealt swiftly and harshly with Moses’ known sins, and logically, He would not use a man who was guilty of “tampering with the word” to author that very same word.

Greg

Gabriel & Greg,

I agree what what you wrote, Gabriel, however, you didn’t deal with what is written in the passage itself, but explained another interpretation from other parts.  What is actually in the passage was not dealt with.

For example, as ardent Calvinists, I know my brothers here tend to point to Romans 9 and urge people to deal with what is written there.  If people point to other passages, they return to Romans 9, because that passage needs to be dealt with, and going to another place won’t clear up what Paul writes in that place.

In the same what, what is in 2 Corinthians 3 needs to be read and dealt with, without being watered-down by other passages.  No one intends to water it down, by the way, but it is the effect of what happens.  For example, in Adventism we used James to “balance” Paul—but in effect, we used James to water-down Paul, to say that Paul really didn’t mean what he was saying.

I’m saying that we need to look at what Paul is saying there without rushing to re-interpret it by logic formulated from other passages.  Our logic (or rather, “system") needs to include the difficult sayings of 2 Corinthians 3.  If the passage does not mesh with our logic/system, then our logic/system needs to change in order to accept what is written in the passage.

*****

I know everyone here is suspecting me of some kind of subversive “NCT” thing, but for the last time I want to tell you that I am just publicly putting this out here to struggle with it and invite others to, as well.

Again, I repeat I have never studied “NCT”, and I beg you all to please restrain from trying to pigeonhole me into it.  It is very frustrating and impolite.  When someone does such a thing to you, it feels like they are not listening to you at all, or like they aren’t talking to you but to a label of you in their minds, or like everything you write is under suspicion.

It makes one feel incredibly unwelcome.  If this is your intention, please just say so and I will post no more.  But if it is not, then I ask you to please refrain from constantly trying to label what I write or disregard what I write with inappropriate labels.

*****

If we can continue, I also want to politely request that my second post at the top be re-read.  I don’t want this to become a kind of thing where scholars are brought in as a kind of re-inforcement for anyone’s points.  Thankfully no one has done this yet.  I want to stick with the Bible here.

I started this post with the hopes it would be an exchange of brothers who share what they believe from reading the text, in reaction to information that the Scripture doesn’t say what most of us were taught growing up.  Most of us were taught that Moses veiled his face for the sake of the Israelites’ sore eyes, but instead Scripture says he did so to hide the fading glory from being seen by the Israelites.

I was shocked when I first learned of this, and I think many (maybe most) Christians would be shocked to discover this.  I meant this thread as a chance to examine that, struggle with what Scripture says, and re-frame our paradigm and understand why God would allow Moses to do such a thing and what it means.

*****

Back to the topic:

The suggestion that Moses did something “wrong” seems to have offended.

Here is the weird thing: By Paul’s description, Moses did something deceitful.  But God did not strike, rebuke, or reprimand Moses for it.  The Exodus account does indeed support Paul’s conclusion (that the veil was used to hide instead of to protect the eyes of the Israelites).

I’m beginning to realize a distinction.  You might call it minor or trivial, but the more I look at it, the more I am at a loss for any other explanation:

Paul does not say that Moses “sinned”.

But you (and I!) say, “Isn’t acting that way sinful?”

That’s a good question.  But in response, consider what Adam’s sin was.  Was Adam covering-up with fig leaves a sin?  He was merely hiding his nakedness.  His sin had been when he ate the fruit from the tree.  Adam got in trouble with God for disobeying His command not to eat from the tree.

In the same way, on the occasions when Moses got in trouble with God, it was for failing to carry out God’s commands in the way God commanded.  But in the case of the veil, however, God had given no specific command.  If God had told Moses specifically to leave his face uncovered, then the act of putting on the veil would have been cause for God to punish Moses as He did on other occasions.

Perhaps just like Adam, Moses was also “hiding his nakedness”—for truly under Law he and Israel were “naked”, as Isaiah would later proclaim, “All our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.”

There are times when the “hiding” is sinful, and I think there are times that God understands and does not push us, but waits in His perfect timing to deal with the things we are too afraid to have exposed.

In the same way, God “waited” to expose the problem of humanity’s attempts to keep the Law for many, many years.  It was necessary for the Law to have such a long, long testimony, in order to prepare humanity to understand Jesus Christ (as is said in Galatians 3).  The problem of righteousness by human faithfulness to the Law needed a long time to be exposed (and even after it was exposed, most of Israel did not listen!).  God could have responded from Sinai, “You guys can’t do this.” But instead He let them do it.  Somehow all that time was necessary.

Maybe in the same way, the “veil” was a necessary lesson to be learned?

In Adam’s case, the sin had been disobeying God’s command.  The fig leaves were used to cover up the results of that disobedience.  In order to be clothed with the “animal skins” God made for them, they likely had to remove their fig leaves.  In fact, as soon as God confronted them, the fig leaves were already off (figuratively speaking) because He knew what they did, and they knew what they did.  You can’t hide anything from God!  Maybe they even knew this?  After all, they hid their whole bodies from God.  Maybe the fig leaves were more to hide their nakedness from each other?

If so, it would be parallel with Moses, who hid his fading face from the Israelites but did not dare put the veil on in God’s presence.

Perhaps in the same way, the main problem wasn’t the “veiling”, but the inability to be faithful to the Covenant (Old).  It would lead to great disobedience in the years to come (and already had with the golden calf).  After the main problem was dealt with, the “veil” would naturally come off or be exposed, just as the fig leaves “came off” with Adam & Eve once God confronted them.

Anyway, I’m wandering here.  Best to stick to 2 Corinthians 3.  And I need lunch…

Blessings in Christ to you all,
Ramone

Hey Ramone,

I think we need to be careful about ascribing motives on all sides in this discussion. None of us comes to this discussion without our preconceived ideas or biases. This includes you, me, Gabriel and whoever else we care to mention. But what troubles me is this idea that somehow by not listening to what anyone else has to say (including scholars), we’re being more “pure” in our approach to Scripture. The implied message is that the same Spirit who guides and informs our study of Scripture is not also operating in the lives of scholars or others who are also diligently studying the Word. We need to be careful not to overestimate our ability to arrive at exegetical perfection in isolation of the wider body of believers. I believe that strengthening each other in an understanding of God’s Word is one of the most important functions of the body of Christ.

Ramone, you’ve said that if we disagree with your interpretation, then we’re diluting God’s Word and ignoring 2 Corinthians 3 the way an Arminian ignores Romans 9. This is simply not true. I dealt with 2 Corinthians 3 directly in my post above, but you disagreed with my interpretation. This leaves us at an impasse. Instead of charging each other with watering down God’s Word, let’s agree to disagree.

Many blessings in Christ,

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Hi everybody
I lean to think that what Moses was trying to show is the difference between the God and himself. In fact, when he opened his radiant face, he actually revealed the words of living God. When his face was covered, he was speaking for himself.
Thats why Paul point out the contradiction between Moses and God - Moses covers, while God reveals.
Be blessed!

Hi Greg,

But what troubles me is this idea that somehow by not listening to what anyone else has to say (including scholars), we’re being more “pure” in our approach to Scripture.

No one said anything about it being more “pure”.  Limiting things to us, however, is better conducive to reading amongst brothers who are looking at something that is relatively new to them.  Most Christians still approach Moses’ hiding action as if it were not hiding, but shielding Israelite eyes.

*****

When we were Adventists, we looked to EGW’s commentaries for the final say.  When we came out, we left EGW behind.  However, it is easy to subtly replace her with other authors, with groups of authors, or charismatic leaders, scholars, church fathers, historical writings, etc.  These can be useful, but are are a poor substitute for learning how to read the Scriptures for oneself, and learning how to study contextually for oneself. 

These things can be a good launching point, but the basis--the homebase--must be our personal relationship with God.  And these things are only meant to direct us to personal communication with God Himself.  While we have “teachers”, yet we have One Teacher—Christ.  And while our teachers teach us about the Lord, yet the promise of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:11) tells us what our primary source must be. 

God did not say,

“Those who are led by the scholars are the sons of God” or
“Those who are led by the prophets are the sons of God” or
“Those who are led by the church fathers are the sons of God” or
“Those who are led by the reformers are the sons of God” or
“Those who are led by the experts are the sons of God” or
“Those who are led by the great preachers are the sons of God"…

But instead He said,
“Those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God”.

Coming from Adventism, it was a very fearful thing to entrust myself to God’s arms—to put my salvation and my continued daily abiding in Him in the hands of His Spirit.  Yet this part of His Covenant is not weak!  It is strong and mighty, because He is strong and mighty.  As an Adventist I always lived by supplements to His Spirit.  The thought of being without a supplement was scary!  It was a crutch, and more than a crutch, it was actually my foundation.

When I left, I fell into the arms of the living God in the trust that He wouldn’t let me fall, just like He promised in John 10.  And He was sufficient, and still is!  It is a wonderful freedom to go to Him personally!  It is a wonderful thing to talk to Him and ask Him what the heck He means by this or that.  And it is still a more wonderful and blessed thing to do so with brothers and sisters in the Lord.  I am wanting to share that blessing here.

*****

Additionally, just like us, scholars are also not exempt from bringing their personal bias (or theology) into texts and passages.  Their views are not more “pure” than yours or mine.  The same Holy Spirit lives in all of us.  It holds true that we shouldn’t cut ourselves off from the rest of the body, however, we should also not lean on scholars as a crutch—particularly when we are facing something that challenges what we have always believed.

I said what I did because I wanted to deal with the Bible alone here, and it is a topic that is not well-known.  The leaning on scholars (at the expense of context) has been demonstrated here at 4TG on other occasions, but that is not the main reason I begged the limitation for this thread.

If you can believe it, I actually wanted to hear what you think.  I don’t want to hear scholars’ ideas or other peoples’ ideas.  I wanted to hear the portion of Jesus Christ that He has put inside of each of us.

*****

However, by pointing out what this passage says (that Moses did something that was clearly not good), there is the risk that our traditional image of Moses will be offended, and I think it’s happened.  Not only that, but our understanding of what God punishes/allows is also tampered with by such a passage as what Paul wrote.

I think with this passage I have offended in that way here, and I apologize for offending, but I believe there is more joy and glory to be found at the end of this “struggle” than if we avoid it in order to preserve our paradigms about Moses (or our systematic beliefs about God).

The basic response to what Paul said I’ve seen here has been, “But that doesn’t make sense, because… [insert external reasons].”

*****

Again, bro. Greg, I shared this because I’ve personally had to go through my own personal shock at this truth:

Moses put the veil on to hide the disappearing glory from the eyes of the Israelites.

He put it on so that they would not see the glory was fading away.

Because of what he did, they could not see the fading glory, and as a result their eyes were blinded to the fading glory.

All three of these points are clear in Paul’s writing.  Gabriel’s protest above is exactly the same shock I felt when I first read these verses and saw for the first time what Paul clearly said.

I read those verses more than a few times while an Adventist missionary, and I never saw what they really said before.  My non-Adventist Christian friends also read the verses many times and never saw what they said.

Discovering what Paul said about what Moses did was shocking to me.  I went through all the natural reactions—denial, shock, questions, etc.  Yet I could not change what was written.  It was right there in the text, and Paul clearly disapproved and would not imitate the same kind of action in his ministry.

*****

I must run, but blessings to all of you in Jesus Christ, you who in his eyes are “Israel” ("He struggles with God")!

In Jesus,
Ramone

Alrighty then, Ramone. Here is my take on it.

In reading this passage I see nothing wrong being done by Moses here. More importantly the actions here of Moses do not reflect the actions of Moses the man, but Moses represents the old covenant. Verses 13-15 of 2 Cor is merely a continuation of verses 1-8 where Paul is merely contrasting the ministries of the covenants.

Look at verse 7 and 8

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away, how shall not the minstration of the spirit be rather glorious?

This tells us a few things:

1) For it’s time, the Mosaic ministry was glorious
2) Moses’ face of this glory was hidden from the Israelites and it was already fading
3) This glory was to be done away with for a more glorious ministry

Now we go to verses 13-15

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, but their minds were blinded. For until this day remaineth the same veil taken away in the reading of the old testament which veil is done away in Christ.

Now more importantly what this verse says is what it DOESN’T say

1) Even though Moses is named as ‘putting a veil over his face’ we see from the Exodus account that Moses did not control what his visage or hair color turned into. This was Yahweh’s doing. We cannot assume that Moses did anything deliberate or deceving. Rather we must conclude that the focus here is of Moses as the Old covenant ministry shown in his face, that was fading, and not Moses the person trying to deceive the people.

2) The point was that the Israelites and subsequently all the rest of the descendant Jews were blinded and could not see the glorious ministry in Christ. To me this was an act of God, not Moses. Christ was the one to reveal all things, it was not up to Moses to do so and it would be strange to say that Moses was responsible for ‘blinding’ Jews’ eyes a thousand years into the future.

All of these verses (the crux being verse 11)basically speak this fundamental truth:

The ministry of Moses was glorious but it was fading and would be replaced by a more glorious ministry of Christ. Christ came and revealed Himself to the blinded Jews and instituted the new covenant of which Yahweh promised to His people but was not yet to be fulfilled until Christ came.

To read anything untoward by Moses in this passage is to miss the point of Moses as a fading ministry (Mosaic/Old Covenant) and not Moses as an individual person. The glory being hidden was not yet to be revealed. As Christ said at the wedding in Cana, ‘My time has not yet come’. It was Christ who ‘causes the blind to see’. Moses is more a symbol in this 2 Corinthians passage than anything else.

Ok, Ramone, I will engage the text of 2 Corinthians 3, even if it was dealt with by others before me. In time it will become clear why I asked you for back up from scholars. As you have required, I have not quote any theologian until this point.

The basic difference between the classic interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3 and your interpretations can be reduced to this point:

Moses covered his face in order to
1. hide the glory of God shining on his face (classic interpretation)
2. hide the fading away of God’s glory shining on his face (Ramone’s interpretation)

The text in dispute is 2 Corinthians 3:13, particularly the means of

“and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. (NASB)

In your view, “the end” means end in time. You translates the end as signifying the same temporal quality of the Old Covenant ministry, and your particular interpretation depends on this understanding of the meaning of the word “end”. You read “fading away”, “ending” (or ceasing), in “look intently at the end”.  The text would read, in your translation

“so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the ending (ceasing)”

And basically the understanding is

““so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was brought to an end” (2 Corinthians 3:13 uses “brought to an end” instead of ”fading away”)

“End” and “fading away” are taken as representing the same reality, the same temporal ending of the Old Covenant ministry. This interpretation is taken as clear reading of the text, and the natural meaning of it.

The reality is that there are no scholars who will endorse this translation of the text, and I believe that they have good reasons. Scholars make exegesis on the original greek text, and in the greek text we find two distinctive expressions used by Paul to clarify what he’s arguing.

Look at the ESV for example of translation. We have “brought to an end” (“fading away” in other translations), the same expression present in verses 7, 11, 13

“Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end” 2 Cor.3:7
“For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.” 2 Cor. 3:11
“not like Moses, ho 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.” 2 Cor. 3:13

The same word is behind the expression “was being brought to an end”, the verb used is

[UBS] katarge, render ineffective, nullify, cancel; destroy, abolish, do away with (pass. pass away, cease); use up (Lk 13.7); pass. with apo, be released from (Ro 7.2, 6); be cut off from (Ga 5.4)

Paul uses the same verb in verses 7, 11, 13 to emphasize the temporal dimension of the Old Covenant. He’s consistent in using the same word, to deliver the same meaning, the “end” of the “Old Covenant”, the temporal end.

But he uses a different word in what was translated in NASB as

“so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end” (v. 13)

ESV does not use “end” as NASB to clear any confusion, it uses the word “outcome” to emphasize the distinction between the English word “end” present in the expression “was brought to an end”, and the word present here, which in greek is

[UBS] telos, ous, n end, termination, conclusion (to the end, forever, continually, at last; to the end, fully; to the end; be at an end; finally, to sum up 1 Pe 3.8); outcome, result, goal, aim, fulfilment (that which was written about me is coming true or my life’s work is completed Lk 22.37); tax, revenue (Mt 17.25; Ro 13.7)

As it can be seen, the word has also the meaning of “outcome, result, goal, aim, fulfillment” and is also the same word used by Paul in Romans 10:4

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Maybe Paul has here the same “goal, outcome, end” in mind, maybe not, certainly is that he uses a different word in 2 Cor. 3, with a different meaning, which leads us to the conclusion that he is expressing a different understanding of “end” than the temporal “end” of Old Covenant for which he uses katarge.

This is why the ESV translation emphasized this distinction correctly

“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.” 2 Cor. 3:13

They use “outcome” and “being brought to an end” to highlight the difference of meaning, so we would not make the mistake of reading the text

“not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the end of what was being brought to an end.”

in which reading, the first “end” would mistakenly carry the same meaning as the second “end”. 

Moses had not put a veil over his face to hide the ending, the ceasing of the glory, but to hide something else, not the temporal dimension of the Old Covenant. The distinction in the original text is clear, and decisive, and we can draw a conclusion based on the proofs, even if we are not familiar with greek.

Gabriel

Guibox and Gabriel, great points.

[quote author="agapetos"]
The same Holy Spirit lives in all of us. It holds true that we shouldn’t cut ourselves off from the rest of the body, however, we should also not lean on scholars as a crutch—particularly when we are facing something that challenges what we have always believed.

Ramone, this is quite a charge you are bringing. Earlier you said that those of us who read trusted scholars are interacting with them in the way you apparently interacted with Ellen White while you were still an Adventist.

What I think you’re missing is that I am not restricted to one particular author. There are many gifted scholars in the body of Christ who have edified my understanding of the Bible. Reading these scholars is not a replacement for personal Bible study, but an augmentation of it.

Your point seems to be that the scholars are somehow untrustworthy compared to your personal interaction with the biblical text. But in isolating yourself, you’re actually much closer to the historic Adventist position than I am. Consider that the early Adventists wanted nothing to do with the outside world, instead preferring to trust their private interpretations and revelations. They would have used the same argument you are about trusting the Spirit to lead them, ignoring centuries of careful Christian scholarship so that their own unique views would remain unchallenged.

Let me ask you, how is your approach different than the early Adventists who also claimed to be taught by the Spirit?

Blessings in Christ,

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Gabriel

Forgive me, I’m confused by what you just said.

Why did Moses wear the veil?

To hide the glory? or to Hide the fading of the glory?

Ane

I can relate to both Ramone’s and Greg’s statements about the use of scholars or extra-Biblical sources in understanding scripture.

Greg is right that the SDA founders suffered from an apparent lack of understanding regarding the development of Christian doctrine. The Great Controversy in particular is woefully lacking in an accurate and thorough depiction of what reformers like Calvin and Luther actually believed and taught. So part of the process of re-evaluating our Christian experience and the Bible should embrace a new willingness to examine the traditional teachings of our forefathers, the reformers, and scholars who in one way or another build on their work today.

But I can relate to Ramone’s concern.  The views of the reformers and modern scholars can be distorting as well. There were concerns unique to them and many current scholars approach the Bible from a certain theology or tradition which can be have the effect of emphasizing some scriptures over others and reading a theology into the text just like Adventism does. The spirit of the Reformation was embodied in a number of solas, among these being sola scriptura. The challenge for Bible believing Christians is to be able to continually be open to new understandings and being willing to challenge traditional intepretations and tradition more generally. Especially for us former or current SDA’s who are in the process of shedding the Ellen White template interpretation of our Bibles to read the Bible afresh, the desire to deal directly with the texts without recourse to the opinions of a commentary is an essential first step in understanding and reclaiming our Christianity. I’m just learning to do this. I used to have a hard time reading the Bible without reaching for the SDA Bible commentary or some other set of study aids when I encountered difficult passages.

Ane,

I admit that I was technical in my post because I dealt with fine points of translation. I will try to be more clear in this post.

My thesis: Moses was hiding the glory, not the fading away of it.

My proof: hiding the glory appears three time in 2 Corinthians 3; verses 7, 11, 13. Every time Paul uses the same greek word, katarge.

But when Paul describes what Moses was hiding, he used the word telos. He had chosen deliberately another word, which signifies that he has in mind something else than the fading away of glory.

Why he is not using the same word he used for “fading away”, if he wanted to say that Moses hided the “fading away”? Three times he uses the same word for describing this “fading away” (katarge), why he would change the word and use telos instead of katarge? Why would he not be consistent and use katarge again? Giving his consistency in using the words, it would be unthinkable to believe that Paul changed the word.

Looking at the greek text makes clear that Paul had something else in mind than the fading away of the glory. Ramone’s interpretation is a misunderstanding arising from translation, confusing the “end” which Moses hided, with the fading away. In greek it is impossible to confuse them, because Paul uses two different greek words.

Gabriel

Hi Guibox,

A quick comment on this part:

1) Even though Moses is named as ‘putting a veil over his face’ we see from the Exodus account that Moses did not control what his visage or hair color turned into. This was Yahweh’s doing. We cannot assume that Moses did anything deliberate or deceving. Rather we must conclude that the focus here is of Moses as the Old covenant ministry shown in his face, that was fading, and not Moses the person trying to deceive the people.

I’m not sure which translation of the Bible you used, but most translations say something like this, which is from the NASB --

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.

From this text alone, we learn that Moses put on the veil for the purpose of hiding the fading glory from the eyes of the Israelites.

While the passage does draw the immediate parallel to the Old Covenant (because Moses & the story & its parts represent the Old Covenant), the part that shocked me is how the text also simply says that the purpose of Moses veiling his face was to keep the Israelites from noticing its glory was fading.

In a sense, it’s kind of the inverse of John the Baptist’s statement, “He must increase, I must decrease.” Moses’ veil prevented Moses or the Covenant from “decreasing” in the eyes of the Israelites.

Again, while the parallel is made between Moses & the Covenant, when I discovered that this was what the passage actually said, I couldn’t help but wonder how in the world God could allow Moses to do that!

One thing I realized after typing about the similarities to Adam’s “cover-up”, was the difference between what was being covered up.  With Adam, he was covering up his disobedience.  With Moses, however, he was not covering up any disobedience.  What he was covering up was the fading glory of the Old Covenant.  Because the Old Covenant was based on the dual faithfulness of both parties (God and Israel), we could say that Moses was covering up Israel’s inability to obey the Covenant.  Not their disobedience, per say, but their inability to obey.  Their obedience to the covenant would be their righteousness, Moses had said. 

In that sense, Moses was covering up their fading righteousness.

Adam was covering up his unrighteousness (that is, his unrighteous disobedience).

When I speak in these terms, I can’t help think of how in the New Testament we are cautioned not only from the unrighteousness of sinning (disobedience, etc.), but we are also cautioned against our righteousnesses (that is, our attempts to earn righteousness).

*****

Gabriel, that indeed was confusing!

At the same time, having read through it, I could perhaps see your point if that were the only verse.  The context, however, suggests the meaning of the translation that the other translations (NASB, NIV, etc.) suggested.

The immediately preceding verse makes this clear, “We are not like Moses...”. 

The distinction of the word “outcome” unfortunately does not change the overall meaning of the passage.  If Paul had wanted to say that the glory was not “fading” (until the New came, of course), then it wouldn’t have been necessary to say “end” or “outcome” at all.  In fact, he simply could have said, “the glory of the covenant which was being brought to an end” or something along those lines.  Of course, guessing what he could’ve written is just that—guessing, so I’m not going to put weight on that.

However, if we want to use your thesis, we ought to suggest that telos can also mean “glory”, because that is what was being brought to an end.

I understand that you also believe Paul could have used a different word (i.e., for “fading”, etc.), however, given that the word translated “outcome” and “end” can mean both and could be read to mean what many translations have suggested, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility at all that it was Paul’s intention.  If telos can absolutely not mean what many translations say it means, then we could absolutely say for sure that Paul did not mean what those translations have said.  But because it can mean that, we cannot absolutely base our refutation of the idea on the fact that he uses other words elsewhere in the passage for “fading”.  The context must be the interpretor.

Finally, I’ll add a note to look up at the quotes I made at the beginning from Exodus, which interestingly do not strictly support either reading, but leave the door open for both.  I would repeat my comments about those verses here, but it’s late, so I’ll just refer back above to what I wrote about the Exodus verses.

*****

Glennspring,

I appreciate the honesty of what you shared.  I completely understand.  All I can suggest as a brother in Christ is to put your trust in God as your Teacher and your Tutor.  His Spirit is not as risky as we learned growing up in SDA.  At times He will help you with scholars, and at times you’ll find yourself fighting to stay awake with them.  Look to Him. 

Scholars can be a good first step, but for some they make the first step overwhelming.  Scholars can be a good twenty-fifth step for some, and for others they’re not.  There’s not a general rule with it.  There is, however, a general rule that our trust is in God, and that He is our Teacher and Counselor.  He wants His own relationship with you!  Not through a surrogate—whether it be a scholar, a prophet, a teacher, a pastor, an elder, an author, or anybody. 

He desires intimacy with you, and from that intimacy with Him you and I learn the greatest things He has for us.  Occasionally someone else’s book or teaching will come into that “secret place”, but they’re not to be a permanent fixture between you & God.

Blessings to you, brother.

*****

Greg,

I’m not going to answer your last question because it is as great a “charge” as the one that you felt I suggested.

I do not think the scholars are “untrustworthy” as you suggested, Greg.  At the same time, it would be insane to imagine that they are beyond carrying their personal/denominational/theological/systematic biases into their scholarship, just the same as we do.  THAT is what I suggested, Greg.

I’m not knocking scholarship, but I do think it is somewhat limited to rely on scholars from one general school of theology.

And finally, I would hope that you could grasp hold of the “charge” that I made—that I would love to hear what you think, not them, and would love to share in the Holy Spirit’s portion in all brothers & sisters here.

I would also hope you could understand the “charge” that I made with Hebrews 8:11, which says that God’s NUMBER ONE way of speaking to us is directly.  Coming from our background, I can completely understand how freaky that idea is.  Yet we serve such a trustworthy God that we can put our faith in His Word indeed.

FINALLY, Greg, I realize that we are getting off topic.  Did you read what I wrote at the end of that second post about the limitation request?  Here it is again:

Note: If you’d like to discuss these reasons, please open up another thread. I’d like to keep this thread free to talk about “Moses’ Secret.” Thanks.

I will not talk about this anymore on this thread.

Deep blessings to all,
Ramone

Ramone,

How exactly did Moses ‘hide’ the glory on his face that was fading? Is this ‘veil’ literal? Where in the Exodus account does it say that Moses wrapped a cloth around his face to deliberately and physically hide his face from the Israelites?

Is it possible that Paul is speaking metaphorically and categorically? It seems to me that the ‘veil’ is symbolic like the ‘chains of sin’ and ‘blinding eyes are opened (spiritual eyes).

Also is it possible that Moses was merely being used by God but the actions characterized by the vessel, Moses? We sometimes say, about a leader, ‘The tyrannical despot killed thousands of women and children in a nearby village’ when in actuality it was his soldiers under the direct command of a general who did it?

And also, going back to my previous post, is it also possible that Moses is really more of a symbol of the OC continuing until Christ can come to fulfill the promises?

Therefore I would conclude that God put up a spiritual veil over Moses’ face to hide the glory that was fading as a symbol of the OC (in Moses) that was fading but wouldn’t be replaced in their eyes until far into the future when Christ was to come. It was a foreshadowing of the failure of the OC that would be replaced by ‘better promises’ in Christ, and they were not made to understand it at the time.

Hence, even if it was only Moses deliberately hiding his face, he was being used by God to do so to signify the fading of the OC that He instituted through Moses.

Just my thoughts.

Hi Greg (and all),

I need to unsubscribe from this thread.  I don’t have the stomach for this and it’s draining my emotions & spirit.  I need time with God.  I do crave to have that time with God with all of you, and look forward to it someday.

I will be unsubscribing to this thread.

Bless you all in His love,
Ramone