Veil of Moses

THE VEIL OF MOSES
Exodus 34:29-35 - February 14, 2008 - By Luke Oakes

a
Significance of Text
The main purpose of Exodus 34:29-35 is to show the transforming power of God’s presence in the life of Moses. The heading given to this topic in the NIV is “Moses’ Face Shines”. My selection is seven verses in length.

There are three major themes found within this text. The first theme encompasses an interaction with God. I believe that this concept of having a relationship with God is at the very heart of God’s purpose for our lives. This interaction with Moses allows us to see the results of having such a relationship with God. The second major theme is a direct effect of the first theme. God’s “Presence” is too much for unrighteous men to bear. Man’s depravity is still acting as a separation from God. Even Aaron is fearful and separated from God. Therefore, Moses hides the effects of his interactions with God to help comfort those who are not ready for that interaction. Finally, the third theme of this text is the redemptive plan of God. Here we have a group of unrighteous men, yet God is in the process of giving them an opportunity to have a relationship with Him again.

Some of the issues raised in this text are: Moses had an interaction with God and his face glowed because of it; however, God currently dwells in us and we do not glow. Why are the evidences of our relationship with God less dramatic after Pentecost? Furthermore, why did Moses cover his face? If my face glowed because I saw God, I would not cover it up unless God told me to. Did his action to cover God’s glory upon his face please God? And finally, why was everyone afraid of Moses’ face when God was doing all these things to deliver them to the Promise Land?

a
Historical and Social Setting
The book of Exodus was originally called we’ēlleh šemôṯ (“these are the names”), which is the first phrase found in the book (Walvoord). Church tradition has given this book the Latin term EXODUS, a “going forth,” because of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt (Jamieson). However, as Osborn writes, “Over time, tradition has long referred to the book of Exodus as ‘The Second Book of Moses.’” This is because of the early belief that Moses himself wrote the Pentateuch. No matter what name is given to it, Exodus is the second book in the Bible and brings us to the climax of the Pentateuch, which is receiving the law at Mt. Sinai.

The author of Exodus has traditionally been Moses; however, since no author is given within the text itself, the book of Exodus officially remains anonymous (Hughes). Many scholars argue for a Mosaic authorship. Their opinions seem to rest on four arguments based in scripture. The first argument is that in Exodus 17:14, the Lord commanded Moses to write the Pentateuch (Walvoord). However, after looking at the context of the scripture, I find that God is only telling Moses to write a book about the victory over the Amaleks and not the entire Pentateuch. The second argument is that Moses himself shows that he is the author in Exodus 24:4 (Jamieson). Once again, I believe that many scholars have taken this verse out of context. Here is Moses, he has just spent all this time up on Sinai receiving the law from God, and when he gets down off the mountain he makes a statement about writing down all that the Lord had told him. I cannot see how scholars take that statement to validate that Moses wrote the entire book of Exodus.
a

The third argument is that David uses the phrase “written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kings 2:3) when he refers to the book of Exodus indicating Moses as the author (Walvoord). This argument ties closely to the fourth argument in which Jesus himself in Mark 7:10 uses the phrase “For Moses said” (Hughes). In both of these occurrences, there is no mention of them referring to the second book of Moses or the Torah. I believe they could be referring to a small book of the law that Moses wrote after he descended from Sinai. Furthermore, if all of Israel refer to the law as the “Book of Moses”, then would not Jesus use the name given to it by the people? He would not correct them because it would not be beneficial to His ministry.

Personally, I fall more in line with the Documentary Hypothesis or JEPD theory. This theory states that there were four main sources used to create the Pentateuch. Walvoord describes how this theory originated. He writes:

The critical scholars observed changes in the divine names (Yahweh vs. Elohim).

They could not reconcile parallel stories (e.g., the endangering of Sarah told in Gen.

12:10-20 and chap. 20). Furthermore, linguistic differences showed up that seemed

to coincide with other peculiarities of different sources (e.g., J might use Sinai, and E

Horeb)…This documentary theory, being highly developed and deceitfully plausible,

has deceptively captured the scholarly world for decades.

a
Although Walvoord does not agree with the Documentary Hypothesis, I believe he shows just cause as to why I believe that the Pentateuch is comprised of multiple stories and by multiple sources. I agree with Propp when he argues, “the first Torah was assembled by a scribe whom we call the Redactor” (42).

I have found that many scholars fail to make any reference to the audience of Exodus. This is most likely because many scholars believe it was written by a Son of Israel (in Moses) and written for the Sons of Israel. I believe wholeheartedly that the author of Exodus was writing on behalf of the children of Israel, so that they could have a singular source to remember their introduction and interactions with God. There are no indications that this book would have been written for any other audience or purpose.

Unlike the audience of Exodus, many scholars have had their input as to the date the book was written. Nonetheless, before this question can be answered, most scholars have to decide if they agree with an early or late date for the Exodus event. Once this is done, most scholars agree with Carson when he writes, “While there is little internal evidence to indicate when the book was written, there is no compelling reason to believe that it must have been penned long after the events described.”

However, I agree with scholars who implement source criticism. They argue that the books were arranged much later sometime after the return from exile in 539 B.C.E. (Propp, 42). Propp identifies two primary reasons to support this argument. The first reason is that the spelling found within the Pentateuch matches the norms of the fifth to third centuries B.C.E. (47). The second reason is categorized as, “the presence of ostensible reflections upon the Mosaic era from the perspective of a later age. For example, Gen 12:6;13:7 recall of the Patriarchal period, ‘the Canaanite was then in the land’ – whereas, from Moses’ viewpoint, the Canaanites should be still in the land” (48).

a
Literary Context
I believe that the basic genre of the book of Exodus is a historical narrative. I say that because it shows the history of the origins of the nation of Israel, and it is written in a narrative form. Agreeing with the Documentary Hypothesis, Propp believes that there is “D-like” Language between Exodus 32-34 referring to the Deuteronomistic writers. Besides the historical narrative, I believe that there are legend aspects to my text. This is because a man whose face is glowing sounds like other texts that are considered to be legend.

The boundaries of the text are easily defined. The first section of Chapter 34 encompasses the renewal of the covenant on Mt. Sinai. At this point in the narrative, Moses is speaking with God at the summit of the mountain. However, when we reach verse 29, Moses is not talking to God anymore, nor is he at the summit of the mountain. This provides a clear division in the text leading to the new theological idea referring to the effects of the presence of God in the life of Moses. Consecutively, Chapter 34 ends with the conclusion of this same thought. Since Chapter 35 begins with Moses revealing the law, I believe that Chapter 35 provides the concluding boundary of my text.

After looking at multiple sources I chose to use Bock’s divisions for the text. His first section includes verses 29-30 which is about the reflection of glory. Moreover, his second section that includes verses 31-32, reflects the authentication that God’s glory brings to the messenger. And third, Bock implies that we must present the message cautiously with the weak and immature in verses 33-35. Although I have modified my outline to better suite my understanding of the text, I agree with the sections that Bock has employed.

The Immediate context of the text begins with the end of Moses writing down the words of God for the past forty days and forty nights. Ryken also points out that Moses fasted without eating bread or drinking water during this time (Ex. 34:28) and was sustained through God’s power. One of the main themes in this section is how Moses is the mediator between God and His people.

Osborn brings out two major differences between the two separate trips that Moses takes down the mountain with God’s law. He writes:

a
By contrast Moses now descends from the mountain with a shining face, while in

chapter 32 he descended with a burning nose. Both times he carried stone tablets

on which were written the terms of the covenant. The first tablets were broken to

show that the people had broken that relationship. Now the new tablets are proof

that Yahweh had restored that relationship. It is Moses, through his persistent

intercession, who has made the difference.

The tablets and Moses’ face is undeniable proof that God has renewed their covenant and relationship. Consecutively, after he arrives with the law and calms the people down, he shares this law with all the children of Israel.

a
Looking at the larger context in Exodus, it “is essentially a book about knowing God through personal experience” (Carson). As Carson describes, the book of Exodus is centered on the relationship that God develops with the Israelites. Furthermore, God uses Moses to be the mediator in leading out His people from bondage and establishing a covenant with them. In Exodus, is it important to note that God is always the one who takes the initiative to develop this relationship (Carson). Moreover, I believe He still takes the initiative in developing a relationship in our lives today.

a
Scripture Passage
Exodus 34:29 It came about when Moses was coming down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses’ hand as he was coming down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because of his speaking with Him. 30So when Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. 31Then Moses called to them, and Aaron and all the rulers in the congregation returned to him; and Moses spoke to them. 32Afterward all the sons of Israel came near, and he commanded them to do everything that the LORD had spoken to him on Mount Sinai. 33When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face. 34But whenever Moses went in before the LORD to speak with Him, he would take off the veil until he came out; and whenever he came out and spoke to the sons of Israel what he had been commanded, 35the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone. So Moses would replace the veil over his face until he went in to speak with Him. (NASB)

a
Text Critical Notes

After searching through many commentaries and other sources, I was unable to find any textual variants within my selected text; nonetheless, I was able to find a difficult translation for the Hebrew word “ קָרַן” (qāran) which means “shine” or “have horns.” Harris indicates that the Vulgate translated this word as “having horns.” He goes on to illustrate how medieval artists like Michelangelo would always place horns on the head of Moses while depicting this passage in Exodus. However, I agree with Ryken when he writes, “But the expression actually refers to rays of light. As a result of his face-to-face encounter with God, Moses had a halo of glory. Dazzling beams of light were shining out from his face.”

a
Outline of Passage
I. The Transforming Power of God’s Presence (vv. 1-2)
        A. The Shining Face of Moses (v. 1)
        B. The Reaction of Israel (v. 2)
II. The Authentication of God’s Message (vv. 3-4)
        A. The Leadership Returns (v. 3)
        B. The Sons of Israel Return (v. 4)
III. The Covering of God’s Presence (vv. 5-7)
        A. The Veil of Moses (v. 5)
        B. In the Presence of God (v. 6)
        C. In the Presence of Israel (v. 7)

THE TRANSFORMING POWER OF GOD’S PRESENCE
I have separated verse 29 into two main sections. The first section portrays Moses coming down the mountain with the law, and the second section describes the shining of his face. Looking closer at the first section, Durham brings us the original name given to the law that Moses wrote down on the mountain. This phrase in the original Hebrew is שׁני לחת העדת “the two tablets of the Testimony.” It is important to note that this is the second time that Moses has descended the mountain with God’s law; moreover, the descending from the mountain completely separates this verse from the previous text giving a clean boundary for exegesis.

The second section of this verse is by far the most intriguing. As Moses descends from the mountain, his face is shining. As I have already pointed out, the word for “shine” in Hebrew is closely linked to “having horns.” This has led some scholars to try and come up with a way to express both ideas. For instance, this is a possible theory that Durham implies. He writes:
It is at least possible that קרן was deliberately used rather than הֹאִיר “shine, give light,” for example, because the narrator intended to suggest a light or a shining that was separate from Moses’ own person, an appendage-light, an exterior light, a light that was a gift to Moses from Yahweh, a sign precisely of an authority that was his by virtue of his special fellowship with Yahweh, an authority of which Moses himself was unaware, as the text plainly says.

While I support Durham’s idea, I find myself in the same line of thought as Spence when he tries to link the idea of this verse with the transfiguration found in Matthew 17:2. I believe that there is some connection between the unfiltered Glory of God and the shining of humans who have interacted with God. Consequently, the fact remains that something was different about Moses’ face, and it provided the children of Israel with striking proof that Moses had interacted with God (Keil).

I find it interesting that Moses was not aware of his shining face. Osborn raises the question, “Was his face sending out rays of light, or was his face radiant?” I find it hard to understand how Moses could not have noticed this change in his body that could be visible to the entire nation of Israel. The only logical conclusion that I can draw is that Moses was so focused on his interaction with God, he did not have any time to analyze the changes that had taken place in his physical body.

Verse 30 begins with the Israelites being afraid of Moses and his shining face. Jamieson indicates that one of the reasons that they were afraid arose from their sense of guilt. I can relate to this feeling because I myself sometimes feel unworthy to even speck His name. I can only imagine what they were thinking since 30,000 men died the last time he came down the mountain. It is important to note that his face was shining before he saw the people. As Osborn writes, “This should not suggest that it was only when the people saw him that his face began to shine. 34.30 TEV is better, ‘his face was shining,’ and 34.30 NIV has ‘his face was radiant.’” I think that this distinction is important because the glory of God was not like a flashlight in Moses’ life. This also means that he could not turn this shining off, which is why we see him cover it with a veil later in the text.

a
THE AUTHENICATION OF GOD’S MESSAGE
Not only was the transforming power of God seen in Moses face, but this power gave an undeniable authentication to God’s Message. As verse 31 describes, when Moses called out to Israel with his shining face, at first only the leaders of the community and the priests had enough courage to stand in front of Moses. Spence argues that when Moses told them to come near, he probably dispelled their fears and re-assured them with a calm and familiar voice. I have no reason to argue this point because whenever an angel or supernatural thing happens, the source of that supernatural act immediately calms the fears of those involved.

Osborn brings out a strong point about the initial conversation that Moses had with the leaders of Israel. He writes, “And Moses talked with them is literally ‘and Moses spoke unto them.’ This suggests that Moses did most of the talking. What he said is not indicated, but we may assume he assured them that Yahweh had been willing to renew the covenant.” I am sure that this good news would further calm down the frightened leaders and allow them to persuade the rest of Israel to approach Moses to receive the law.

And that is what happens in verse 32. Durham reveals, “Only when Moses called out to Aaron and the leaders who represented the people, and only when they drew near and conversed with Moses without harm, did the people themselves feel that it was safe to come close to Moses.” Moreover, Osborn suggests that the phrase “and afterward” would suggest a brief period of time. Once again it shows that the children of Israel wanted to make absolutely sure that it was safe to approach Moses. If I was there, I would have been hiding behind a rock, waiting to see if people were going to die again. I probably would have been the very last person in line to hear what Moses had to say, and I would have had a plan if things turned ugly.

Ashby brings out the idea that the people saw Moses’ shining face as a visible sign of their forgiveness. Although I can appreciate this view, it would seem more useful that his face was shining as a means of the authority and authentication of his message. I believe the message that Moses carried was more than enough evidence that God had forgiven them. Duraham does a great gob in explaining what transpired when it depicts that Moses “revealed” or “commanded” God’s message to them. He writes:

The verb that describes this review of Moses is revealing: וַיְצַוֵּם piel imperfect of צוה

“Then he made them responsible for, gave into their charge,” in effect turned over to

them the commandments and instructions given to him by Yahweh for their guidance

in living the life in relationship to Yahweh’s Presence. This amounts, given the

context, to Israel’s recommitment to the requirements of covenant relationship.

With their Covenant renewed and all fear dispelled, the author of Exodus now focuses on the secondary issue of Moses and his shining face. It is clear that Moses could not control this glory, so the last section of the text deals with how he handled the recurring situation.

a
THE COVERING OF GOD’S PRESENCE
Verse 33 is very short and to the point. It tells us that after Moses was done sharing the Message of God, he covered his face with a veil, מסוה)) or some type of covering. Two main questions arise from this verse. The first question is what exactly did Moses place over his face? Osborn suggests that “it may have been a face mask, similar to what the Egyptian priests wore to represent the ‘face’ of their god.” However, he concedes that the majority of scholars (including Durham) view this covering as some type of veil or cloth that would mask the effects of the glowing but still allow him to see. I agree with the majority of scholars that it was some type of veil; however, I do not believe that its primary function was to mask the effects of God’s glory. I personally believe that it was more of a symbol that was to represent something specific which leads us into the second question.

Not only do we want to know what covered Moses’ face, but we must also find the reason or purpose of that covering. There are four main reasons that scholars give as to why Moses covered his face. The first reason was to “allay the fear that kept people at a distance” (Steele). Although this argument seems like a logical one, it is weak because the people already overcame their fear when they initially met with Moses. Furthermore, since this “shining” was going to be a recurring situation, I believe that the people would have been able to cope with the current circumstances.

A second possible reason as to why Moses covered himself was to hide the transitory nature of God’s glory departing from his face (Julian). This argument is weaker than the first. Julian even points out that the text shows that “Moses veiled his face because the glory was there, not because it was fading.” Moreover, Julian provides the third reason why scholars believe why Moses covered his face. He writes, “The veil was not meant to deceive the people about the glory; it was meant to protect them from it. The veil separates the people from the glory of God; that fact fuels the comparison which Paul is making.” I can understand how scholars can arrive at this point. Looking at the rest of the Pentateuch, the children of Israel are forbidden to enter the Holy of Holies, which is where the presence of God dwells. However, that would not explain why Moses would take off the veil while presenting the message of God to the people that is clearly indicated in verse 35. Therefore, if the people were allowed to see the glory on Moses face at certain times, this would seem to contradict the protection theory.

Finally, we arrive at the fourth reason as to why scholars believe that Moses covered his face and the Glory of God. As simply stated by Durham, “to indicate the end of his ‘official’ communication of Yahweh’s revelation. With the veil in place, Moses would be speaking once again for himself.” This idea best describes my belief in that the covering was only to be symbolic. One reason that I believe this is that I can not comprehend why any man would cover up something that God had given them. That would seem more like going against God and His plan than following His Will. Moreover, I can not picture a simple device covering what I feel is more like an overwhelming brightness that I compare to the transfiguration account in Matthew. Nevertheless, I believe that Moses used a simple plan to show the people if he was speaking for God or for himself.

Verses 34 and 35 could almost be considered as one verse. It reveals that when Moses is in the presence of God, his face is not veiled. In addition, after he receives the message from God, he shares that message with his veil off. And finally, he returns the veil to his face after he has finished revealing God’s Message. Osborn is clear when he argues that the children of Israel experienced the shining of Moses’ face every time he revealed God’s message. This is an important distinction because it gives scholars important information as to the reason why Moses covered his face, which is described earlier in the paper.

Accordingly, Spence develops the main thrust behind this small ritual of removing and replacing the veil over his face. He writes,

a
He took it off when he entered the tabernacle, that the Divine presence might shine

fully on him and renew his strength. He kept it off when he returned, if he had any

message to the people, until he had delivered it, in order the more fully to

authenticate the message and show to the people that it was from God.

Although I disagree that the veil had to be removed for Moses to get his spiritual tan, I agree that God’s primary purpose for eliminating Moses’ face was to further authenticate that the message was from God. Therefore, I stand by my position that the veil was mainly a tool to distinguish between the sources of Moses’ conversations. If he was speaking for God the veil was off, and if he was speaking on his own behalf, he demonstrated that physically with a piece of cloth covering his mouth.
a
CONCLUSION
Summation
The Vulgate translated the word for “shine” as “having horns.” However, I believe that as a result of his face-to-face encounter with God, Moses had beams of light shining out from his face. I believe that Moses was so focused on his interaction with God, and that he did not have any time to analyze the changes that had taken place in his physical body. Once he found out that his face was shining, it is important to note that he could not turn this shining off, which is why we see him cover it with a veil later in the text. He had no control over God’s glory.

When Moses first addressed the leaders of Israel, he more than likely dispelled their fears and re-assured them that God was not going to harm them. This good news would have further calmed down the frightened leaders and allowed them to persuade the rest of Israel to approach Moses to receive the law. I believe that Moses face was shining as a means to display the authority and authentication of his message; moreover, it seemed to work because everyone could see his face and were affected by it.

I agree with the majority of scholars that Moses wore some type of veil; however, I do not believe that its primary function was to mask the effects of God’s glory. I personally believe that it was more of a symbol that was to represent the source of what he was saying. One reason that I believe this is that I cannot comprehend why any man would cover up something that God had given them. Nevertheless, I believe that Moses used a simple plan to show the people when he was speaking for God or for himself. The veil became a tool to distinguish between the sources of Moses’ conversations. If he was speaking for God the veil was off, and if he was speaking on his own behalf, he demonstrated that physically with a piece of cloth covering his mouth.
a
Application
This passage shows us the transformation that takes place in our bodies when we are filled with the Glory of God. Like the transfiguration in Matthew (Mat. 17:2), Jesus showed the Apostles what our earthly bodies could look like in the same way. This transforming power in the presence of Moses shows that God has much more in store for us as we prepare to spend eternity with Him. Although the Glory of God would fade away from Moses in the Old Testament, Paul shares with us in 2 Corinthians that we are now filled with this Glory in the form of the Holy Spirit and it will not fade away.

I believe that God’s primary goal is to make us more and more like Him. This process will last throughout all eternity, but he wants to begin it today. He sent his own Son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins so that we would be considered righteous in His sight in order that we could receive His Glory. I believe this fits in perfectly in Paul’s message in 2 Corinthians 4:1-2. His message is that we are filled with the Holy Spirit, and that means that we have already received eternal life. Since those things are true, we are able to boldly present the message of Christ because Christ is in us, and people can see that. This allows the Holy Spirit to use our witness as a tool to help steer non-believers toward Christ. I believe we have the Glory that Moses displayed in Exodus. However, this Glory resides in us constantly.

a
WORKS CITED
Ashby, G. W.: Go Out and Meet God: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. CD ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Bock, Darrell L. “Exodus.” NetBible.Org: Study Notes. 2005. Bible.org. 9 February 2008.

Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Durham, John I. Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Harris, R. L. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Hughes, R. B. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Jamieson, R. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Julian, Ron. “Longing for Glory.” Mckenzie Study Center: An Institute of Gutenberg College. 2000. Gutenberg College. 9 February 2008.

Keil, C. F. Commentary on the Old Testament. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Osborn, N. D. A handbook on Exodus. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1-18. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Ryken, Philip Graham. Exodus: Saved for God's Glory. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Spence, H. D. M. The Pulpit Commentary. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Steele, Daniel. “Why Did Moses Veil His Face.” Half-Hours With St. Paul: And Other Bible Readings. 2006. Commonplace Holiness. 9 February 2008.

Walvoord, J. F. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. CD-ROM. Logos Library System 3.0. Bellingham, WA: Libronix, 2006.

Oakes Ministries

Bringing the Word of God to Life