THE VEIL OF MOSES – WHY PAUL MISREADS EXODUS 34

בס "ד

The Veil of Moses: Why Paul Misreads Exodus 34

In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul presents an interpretation of Exodus 34 that has become highly influential in Christianity. According to him, Moses covered his face to hide the fading of its radiance, and that veil functions as a symbol of a lasting spiritual “covering” over Israel whenever the Torah is read (2 Cor. 3:13–15).

This reading may seem coherent until one closely examines Exodus 34 itself — and even more so when read alongside classical Jewish commentaries. Paul’s interpretation is not only exegetically weak but fundamentally at odds with both the text and tradition.

The Text Says the Opposite of Paul

Exodus 34 is remarkably precise in describing the sequence of events. Moses first speaks with G-d, then addresses the people of Israel — in both cases without a veil. Only after he has finished speaking does he cover his face (Ex. 34:33). When he goes back to speak with G-d, he removes the veil again (Ex. 34:34). The text repeats this pattern explicitly, as if to prevent misunderstanding.

This chronology is decisive. The veil never appears during revelation or instruction. It cannot be intended to conceal G-d’s words or limit the people’s understanding. Revelation is communicated unveiled. Paul’s claim that Moses wore the veil while speaking, or to hide something, is therefore textually unsustainable.

Kli Yakar: Humility, Not Concealment

The Kli Yakar (Exodus 34:33) interprets Moses’ behavior morally rather than theologically. According to him, Moses wore the veil out of personal humility, feeling embarrassed that people stared at the radiance of his face as if it said something about him. Yet the veil had to be removed when Moses received or transmitted instruction. Learning and revelation require openness; shyness must not interfere — a principle echoed in Pirkei Avot 2:5: “One who is easily embarrassed cannot learn.”

In this reading, the veil is not a judgment on Israel but an expression of Moses’ ethical sensitivity. Paul, by contrast, turns this humility into a theological judgment against the people — a step the Kli Yakar explicitly contradicts.

Rabbeinu Bachya: Sanctity Is Not a Spectacle

According to Rabbeinu Bachya (Shemot 34:33–34), Moses never wore a mask while teaching Torah, neither before G-d nor before the people. The veil was applied only after the instruction was completed. The reason lies not in the people’s incapacity but in the nature of holiness itself. Sacred radiance is not meant to be a spectacle for passive observers; those not learning do not need to “see.” The veil protects sanctity, it does not hide it. Remarkably, Rabbeinu Bachya notes that Moses retained this radiance throughout his life, until his death (Deut. 34:7). There is no mention of a fading glow — that idea is introduced solely by Paul.

Sforno: Torah Requires Visibility, Not Concealment

Sforno (Exodus 34:33) reinforces this point, emphasizing that Moses’ face was uncovered while speaking, linking it to Isaiah 30:20: “Your eyes shall see your teachers.” Torah instruction presumes visibility; the teacher’s face is not meant to be hidden. Paul’s claim that the veil represents a necessary covering during Torah study is therefore not only exegetically weak but pedagogically impossible within Jewish tradition.

Steinsaltz: Distinguishing the Sacred, Not Rejecting It

Finally, Steinsaltz (Exodus 34:33) explains that Moses did not want to “carry” his shining face into ordinary life. The veil marks the distinction between sacred moments and everyday activities. It is not because Israel cannot handle the sight, but because holiness demands context. Paul, however, turns this demarcation into a symbol of spiritual deficiency in the people. This is not an explanation of Exodus 34, but a reinterpretation with a predetermined theological agenda.

Conclusion

When we read Exodus 34 alongside classical Jewish commentaries, it becomes clear that what Paul does in 2 Corinthians 3 is not a neutral interpretation of Moses’ veil, but a reversal of both the text and tradition:

The veil of Moses in the Torah is not a sign of decline, a fading glory, or a spiritual covering over Israel. It expresses reverence, humility, and pedagogical wisdom.

Paul, however, presents the veil as proof that Israel cannot see the Torah without Christ and implies that Moses was hiding something from them. Yet in Exodus 34, revelation is transmitted fully unveiled, and Moses’ radiance remains permanent. Therefore, the foundation of Paul’s metaphor collapses: the text contains no veil that limits the people, nor a fading radiance that must be concealed.

Paul’s reading is not merely another interpretation, it is textually incorrect, traditionally unfounded, and conceptually opposed to what Exodus 34 actually teaches.

Par Angelique Sijbolts
With thanks to Rabbi Tani Burton for his feedback

© Copyright, tous droits réservés. Si vous avez apprécié cet article, nous vous encourageons à le diffuser.

Nos blogs peuvent contenir du texte, des citations, des références ou des liens qui comprennent des éléments protégés par le droit d'auteur de Mechon-Mamre.org, Aish.com, Sefaria.org, Chabad.orget/ou AskNoah.orgque nous utilisons conformément à leurs politiques.