Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3:13 - 3:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_3:13. A negative amplification of the πολλῇ παῤῥησίᾳ χρώμεθα by comparison with the opposite conduct of Mose.
καὶ οὐ ] sc. τίθεμεν κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ἡμῶν , according to the Greek way of putting the verb, which is common to the principal and subordinate clause, in the subordinate clause, and adapting it to the subject of that clause. See Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 592 A; Winer, p. 542 [E. T. 728]; Kühner, II. p. 609. The meaning of the allegorical language is: “and we do not go to work veiling ourselves (dissembling), as Moses did, veiling his countenance, that the Israelites might not,” etc. See Exo_34:33-35.
πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι κ . τ . λ .] the purpose, which Moses had in veiling his radiant face while he spoke to the people: the people were not (as they would otherwise have done) to fix their gaze on the τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένον (see below). In order to free Moses from a dissimulation, Wolf explained it: “ut indicaretur eos non posse intueri,” which, however, is not conveyed in the words, and is not to be supported by Luk_18:1; and Schulz and Flatt, following older commentators, explain that πρὸς κ . τ . λ . means so that, etc., which, however, is wrong both as to the usage of the words (comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. v. 28, p. 231) and as to the connection of ideas, since the πολλῇ παῤῥ . χρ . of 2Co_3:12 presupposes the intentional character of the opposite procedure. The latter remark applies also in opposition to de Wette (comp. before him, Beza and Calvin), who takes πρὸς κ . τ . λ . not of the intention, but of the divine aim, according to the well-known Biblical teleology, in which the result is regarded as aimed at by God, Isa_6:9; Mat_13:11 ff.; Luk_8:10. In this way a conscious concealment on the part of Moses is removed; but without sufficient ground, since that concealment must not have been regarded by Paul as immoral (“fraudulenter,” Fritzsche), and with his reverence for the holy lawgiver and prophet cannot have been so regarded, but rather, in keeping with the preparatory destination of the Mosaic system, as a paedagogic measure which Moses adopted according to God’s command, but the purpose of which falls away with the emergence of that which is abiding, i.e. of the ministry of the gospel (Gal_4:1 ff.). Finally, the argument of usage is also against de Wette, for in the N. T. by the telic πρὸς τό and infinitive there is never expressed the objective, divinely-arranged aim (which is denoted by ἵνα and ὅπως ), but always the subjective purpose, which one has in an action (Mat_5:28; Mat_6:1; Mat_13:30; Mat_23:5; Mar_13:22; Eph_6:11; 1Th_2:9; 2Th_3:8; Jam_3:3, Elzevir; also Mat_26:12). The point of comparison is the “tecte agere” (Fritzsche), which was done by Moses with the purpose specified through the veiling of his face (not through the figures in which he veiled the truth, as de Wette, following Mosheim, imports), but is not done by the teachers of the gospel, since they go to work in their ministry freely and frankly (2Co_3:12). The context furnishes nothing further than this, not even what Hofmann finds in the κ . οὐ καθαπ . Μ . κ . τ . λ .[165] As little are we to suppose arbitrarily, with Klöpper, that Paul had in mind not so much Moses himself as his successors (?), the Judaists.
εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργ .] τὸ τέλος , by its very connection with τοῦ καταργ ., is fixed to the meaning end, and not final aim (Osiander) or completion;[166] and τοῦ καταργ . must be the same as was meant by τὸ καταργούμενον in the application intended by Paul of the general proposition in 2Co_3:11. Consequently it cannot be masculine (Luther, Vatablus; even Rückert is not disinclined to this view), nor can it denote the Mosaic religion, the end of which is Christ (Rom_10:4), as, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, most expositors, including Flatt and Osiander, think, against which, however, even Moses’ own prophecy (Deu_18:15), according to the Messianic interpretation then universal, would militate; but it must be the ministry of Moses, which is passing away, see on 2Co_3:11. The Israelites were not intended, in Paul’s opinion, at that time to contemplate the end of this ministry, which was to cease through the ministry of the gospel; therefore Moses veiled his face.[167] By what means (according to the apostle’s view), if Moses had not veiled himself, they would have seen the end of his office, is apparent from 2Co_3:7, namely, by the disappearance of the splendour, the departure of which would have typically presented to them the termination of the διακονία of Moses.[168] But not on this account are we to explain (with the scholiast in Matthaei and others, including Stolz, Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald,[169] Hofmann) ΤῸ ΚΑΤΑΡΓ . of the transient splendour itself (2Co_3:7), which is forbidden by 2Co_3:11, and would be a confusion of the type and antitype.
[165] “If the apostle had found his calling only in publishing to others traditional doctrines, he would have thought, like Moses, that he must carefully distinguish between what he was and what he had to teach, that he must keep his person in subordination to his task, in order not … to injure the effect of what he taught.”
[166] So Isenberg in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 240 ff., who, regarding τοῦ καταργ . as the genitive of apposition, brings out the sense: “the transitory office of the O. T. as the completion, after which no other institution could be expected.” Thus there is ascribed to Moses exactly the opposite of what the simple words say; Paul would have written something like εἰς τὸ καταργούμενον ὡς τὸ τέλειον . The genitive of apposition would here give the meaningless thought: “the end, which is the transitory.”
[167] Paul deviates, therefore, from the representation of Exodus 34 in not abiding simply by the statement, that Moses veiled his face because the eyes of the Israelites could not endure the radiance—but, in connection with his typological way of regarding the fact, apprehends it in the sense that Moses was induced to veil himself by the subjective motive of keeping out of the people’s sight the end of his ministry of law.
[168] It might be objected to our whole explanation, that, if Moses had not veiled himself, the people would still not have read the end of the Mosaic ministry from the departing splendour (Billroth), nay, that Moses himself did not find anything of the kind in it. But we have not here a supplement of the account in Exodus 34 (Krummel), but a rabbinic-allegorical exposition ( ãøù ) of the circumstances, which as such is withdrawn from historical criticism, but nevertheless is in accordance with the striking aim which the apostle has in view. This aim was to make the παῤῥησία of the stewardship of the gospel-ministry conspicuous by contrast, like the light by shadow.
[169] Who explains it as if not εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργ ., but simply εἰς τὸ καταργούμενον , were used. Ewald conceives the disappearance of the splendour as ensuing gradually during the age, and finally at the death of Moses, as Grotius also on ver. 7 represents it.