II. CORINTHIANS S, 13. 67

obscurely in order that he might not be understood ? Some endeavour to obviate this difficulty by saying that -n-pos rb /xr) drc^to-at expresses the result and not the design. ' He put a veil over his face, so that (not, m order that) the children of Israel did not see the end of that which is abolished.' Or, to drop the figure, ' He taught obscurely, so that the people did not understand him.' This explanation, however, is forbidden by the force of the preposition Trpd?, which in such connections properly expresses the design or intention. There is no spe- cial difficulty in the matter. Whatever is, God intended should be. If Moses taught obscurely or in types, God in- tended that he should do so. If, in point of fact, the Jews misunderstood the nature of their own economy, regarding as ultimate and permanent what was in fact preparatory and temporary, this was included in the divine purpose. It was evidently the plan of God to make the revelation of the scheme of redemption gradually. The whole was by slow degrees evolved from the original promise made to our first parents. Perhaps the object of their faith was the simple promise of redemption. To Abraham it was revealed that the Redeemer was to be one of his descendants. To Moses it was made known that he was to be a prophet like himself, and the nature of his work was obscurely set forth in the priest- hood and sacrifices which he ordained. This was enough for salvation, so long as nothing more had been revealed. It was in accordance with this plan that Moses spoke in such a way that the people did not understand the full import of his teaching, God having purposed " that they without us should not be made perfect," Heb. 11, 40. The passage before us is parallel, in a measure, to Mark 4, 11, where our Lord says, '' Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God ; but unto them that are without all these things are done in parables ; that seeing they may see, and not per- ceive." There is, therefore, as just remarked, no special diffi- culty m this passage, even if it is understood to teach that Moses was commissioned so to veil his teachings that they should not be clearly understood. There is another difficulty connected with this verse. It does not seem to agree with Exodus 34, 30. There it is said that the people were afraid to approach Moses on account of the brightness of his face, and the implication (according to the English version, at least) is, that it was to calm their fears he put on a veil. Whereas here it is said that he put a veil over his face that tlie people