might not see the transient nature of that brightness. There is no inconsistency between the two accounts. The veiling had both eifects ; it cabned the fears of the people, and it pre- vented their seeing how fleeting the brightness was. As both effects followed, both were intended. Paul in this epistle as- signs in different places three or four reasons why he com- manded the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous member of their church. That it was meant as a test of their obedience, 2, 9, is not incompatible with its being a proof of his care for them, 7, 12. There is, however, not even the ap- pearance of discrepancy between what the apostle here says and Exodus 34, 30-33, as it is rendered both in the Septuagint and Vulgate. The English version of that passage is, " And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone ; and they were afraid to come nigh him. And Moses called unto them ; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. . . . And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face." According to this Moses put a veil over his face when he vSpoke to the people, and the implication is that he did it because they were afraid on account of the brightness of his countenance. But the Hebrew, in v. 33, is simply, " Moses ceased to speak with them, and put a veil over his face." The natural meaning of which is that he did not veil his face until he had ceased speaking. The Septuagint therefore renders the passage, " And when he ceased speaking with them, he put a veil over his face." And the Vulgate, impletisque sermonihus^ posuit velamen super faciem suam. It appears from the following verses that when Moses went in before the Lord, he removed the veil ; and when he came out his face shone, and he spake to the people, and again resumed tlie veil. According to this interpretation of the original, the object of putting on the veil was not to calm the fear of the people, but, as Paul says, to prevent their seeing how tho brightness of his face vanished.
14. But their minds were blinded ; for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the read- ing of the Old Testament ; which (veil) is done away in Christ.
In the preceding verse Paul was speaking of his ministry ;
II. COniNTHIANS 3, 14. 60
the same subject is resumed in the following chapter. Verses 14-18 are therefore a digression, although intimately con- nected with what precedes and follows. The particle dAAa either introduces something just the reverse of what pre- cedes, and means on the contrary^ or simply something different, and is to be rendered but. This verse admits of two modes of connection with what precedes. 'The Jcavs did not understand the ministry of Moses, o)i the contrary^ their minds were blinded.' Or, the connection may be with the main idea of the preceding context. ' We use great plain- ness of speech, but their minds are blinded.' That is, not- withstanding the clearness with which the gospel is presented as the substance and true meaning of the old economy, still the Jews were so blinded they did not perceive it. In either way the sense is good. But as it is so much the habit of the apostle to connect what follows with what immediately pre- cedes, and as the figure of the veil, which is not mentioned in V. 12, is continued in v. 14, it is most natural to make the con- nection with V. 13, where that figure is introduced, especially as Paul's immediate object in v. 12 is not to exhibit his plain- ness of speech in opposition to the hebetude of the Jews. It is the general fact that under the new dispensation the truth is exhibited plainly which he asserts. The blindness of the Jews is only incidentally introduced. Their minds^ vorjfxaTa, thoughts, affections. It means the whole inner man. Were blinded, iTnapdi^y), properly icere rendered hard or callous. The word is used both of the understanding and of the feelings. It expresses an inaptitude both of seeing and feehng. They neither understood nor felt the power of the truth. For un- til this day remaineth untaken aicay the same veil. This is a confirmation derived from experience of the fact previously stated. That the minds of the Israelites were thus blinded and hardened, is proved from the fact that until this day they do not understand the law. The same veil, i. e. the same ob- scurity. A veil was thrown over the truth as first revealed by Moses, and that same veil is there still. The Israelites of Paul's day miderstood their Scriptures as little as their fathers did. They remained satisfied with the external, ritual and ceremonial, without penetrating to what was beneath, or ask- ino- the real import of the types and shadows of the old econo- my. In the reading of the Old Testament, that is, when the Old Testament (covenant) is read. This metonymical use of the word covenant for the books in wdiich that covenant is