ministry, and therefore lie represents him as veiling himself, to express the idea that he communicated the truth obscurely. Paul was sent to let the truth shine forth clearly ; he did not put a veil over it as Moses did, and was commanded to do. That the children of Israel coulfd not steadfastly look to the end of that ichich is abolished. That is, to prevent their seeing the end or fiding away of the brightness of his face. The Avord KaTapyov^aevos (that ichich is abolished) is used, v. V, in refer- ence to the glory of the face of Moses, and v. 11 in reference to his ministry and the dispensation to which it belonged. Here the reference is to the former, because his face is spoken of, and its brightness was veiled, and therefore, it was the brightness the end of which the Israelites were prevented from seeing. If this be so, then rk\o<;^ the end^ must mean the termination, and not the design or scope. In Rom. 10, 4, Christ is said to be the end of the law, not only as abrogating it, but as being the object towards which it tended. He was that v;hich it was intended to reveal. Those commentators who make KaTapyovfxevov [that ivhich is abolished) refer to the old law and its ministry, give re'Aos the sense of end or object. They understand the apostle to say that Moses put a veil over his face to prevent the children of Israel seeing Christ, who was the end of the law. But this gives a most incongruous mean- ing. How could Moses's veiling his face prevent the Israel- ites seeing Christ? The first part of the verse cannot be taken literally, and the latter part iiguratively. If the veiling was a literal covering of the face, that which the veil hid must be something which a literal veil could cover. The majority of commentators, therefore, understand the words, that which is abolished^ to refer to the visible brightness of the fxce of Moses, and the end to mean the termination of that brightness. The whole clause therefore means that Moses veiled his face in order to prevent the Israelites seeing how soon its bright- ness faded. But what has this to do with the point in hand ? In answering this question it must be remembered that the apostle had referred to the brightness of the face of Moses as a fit symbol of his ministry, inasmuch as it was externa] and transient. To say, therefore, that Moses veiled his face that the people might not see the end of its brightness, is a figura- tive way of saying that Moses hid the light, or taught ob- scurely, that the i)eoi)le might not understand the true nature and intent of his ministry. But how is it consistent with the character of God that he should commission Moses to teach
{