Ver. το. καὶ yap οὐ δεδόξασται: for that which hath been made glorious, 56., the Ministration of the Old Covenant, hath not [really] been made glorious in this respect, viz.,on account of the sur- passing glory (of the Ministration of the New Covenant) ; 7.e., the surpassing glory of the second made the glory of the first seem nought, The phraseology of Exod. Xxxiv. 35 (τὸ πρόσωπον Μωσῆ .. - δεδόξασται) is still in the Apostle’s mind. ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει has been otherwise explained as equivalent to ‘in this in-
. η. 12. ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτην ἐλπίδα, πολλῇ "παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα" 13. i 1. νἱ. καὶ οὐ καθάπερ "Μωσῆς ἐτίθει “κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ " πρόσωπον ἑαυτοῦ,
19; Phil.
i.20; Col. πρὸς τὸ μὴ “ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Ισραὴλ "εἰς 1d? τέλος ὃ τοῦ καταρ-
ii. 15; 1
Tim. iii, youpévou 14. ἀλλ᾽ “ἐπωρώθη τὰ !νοήµατα αὐτῶν ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς
b Exod. XxXxiv. 33,
5. c Here only. d Reff. ver. 7. y 2:
xiii. 15; 1 Tim. iv. 13 only; Neh. viii. 8. h
e Mk. vi. 52, viii. 17; John xii. 40; Rom. xi. 7 only. i ere only.
ojpepov* τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ" τῇ “ ἀναγνώσει τῆς " παλαιᾶς ὃ διαθήκης μένει μὴ ᾿ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, 6° τι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται"
f Reff. ii. 11.
g Acts i Ver. 18 only; c/. Job xii. 22.
' $$DEK support εαντον; better αντον ABCGLP 17. (Yet B has eavrov, Exod.
XXXIV. 35.) 2 D*G om. το before τελος.
ΣΑ, f have προσωπον for τελος (a manifest error due to the προσωπον in the line
before).
* Better σηµερον ἡμέρας (cf. Acts xx. 26, Rom. xi. 8) with NABCDEGP and most vss.; the received text in omitting ἡμέρας follows KL and the Peshitto.
®° DEG have εν for επι.
stance of Moses’; but it seems (see ref.) to be merely a redundant phrase, added for the sake of emphasis, intro- ducing ἕνεκεν τῆς ὑπερβ. δόξ.
Ver. 11. εἰ γὰρ τὸ καταργ. «.T.A.: for if that which passes away was with lory, much more that which abideth is in glory. The difference of prepositions διὰ δόξης . . . ἐν δόξῃ should not be overlooked; the Ministration of the Old Covenant was only with a transient flush of glory, that of the New abides in glory (cf. esp. Heb. xii. 18-27). It is true that St. Paul sometimes ges his pre- positions in cases where we find difficult to assign a sufficient reason (εξ. διά and ἐκ, Rom. iii. 30, Gal. ii. 16); but that is no reason for confusing the force of διὰ and ἐν, when the preservation of the distinction between them adds point to the passage (cf. Rom. v. 10, where διὰ and ἐν are again confused in the A.V.). See further on vi. 8
Vv. 12-18. ΤΗΕ MINISTRY OF THE New Covenant 18 (δ) OPEN, NOT VEILED, AS WAS THAT OF THE OLD. The illustration from the Ο.Τ. which is used in these verses has been obscured for English readers by the faulty render- ing of the A.V. in Exod. xxxiv. 33. It would appear from that rendering, viz., ‘till Moses had done speaking with them he put a veil on his face,” that the object of the veil was to conceal from the people the Divine glory reflected in his face. But this is to misrepresent the original Hebrew, and is not the rendering given either by the LXX or by modern scholars. The R.V. substitutes when for
® τι should be written οτι, as by Tisch. and W.H,
till in the verse just quoted, thus bringing out the point that the veil was used to conceal not the glory on the face of Moses, but its evanescence ; it was fading even while he spoke, and this by his use of the veil he prevented the people from re When he * went in unto the
d” again he took the veil off. The Apostle — all this to the Israel of his day. Stilla veil is between them and the Divine glory—a veil “ἢ upon their hearts” which prevents them from seeing the transitoriness of the Old Covenant; yet, as it was of old, if they turn to the Lord, the veil is removed, and an vision is granted. St. Paul is fond of such alle- gorisings of the history of the Exodus; εὐ» ¢.g., 1 Cor. x. 2, Gal. iv. 25.