# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Archelaus/Acts of Disputation/Chapter XLIII

43. I shall speak now with the utmost brevity of the veil of Moses and the ministration of death. For I do not think that these things at least can introduce very much to the disparagement of the law. The text in question, then, proceeds thus: “But if the ministration of death, engraven in letters on the stones, was made in glory, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away;” and so on. Well, this passage at any rate acknowledges the existence of a glory on the countenance of Moses, and that surely is a fact favourable to our position. And even although it is to be done away, and although there is a veil in the reading of the same, that does not annoy me or disturb me, provided there be glory in it still. Neither is it the case, that whatever is to be done away is reduced thereby under all manner of circumstances to a condition of dishonour. For when the Scripture speaks of glory, it shows us also that it had cognizance of differences in glory. Thus it says: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.” Although, then, the sun has a greater glory than the moon, it does not follow that the moon is thereby reduced to a condition of dishonour. And even thus, too, although my Lord Jesus Christ excelleth Moses in glory, as the lord excelleth the servant, it does not follow from this that the glory of Moses is to be scorned. For in this way, too, we are able to satisfy our hearers, as the nature of the word itself carries the conviction with it in that we affirm what we allege on the authority of the Scriptures themselves, or verily make the proof of our statements all the clearer also by illustrations taken from them. Thus, although a person kindles a lamp in the night-time, after the sun has once risen he has no further need of the paltry light of his lamp, on account of that effulgence of the sun which sends forth its rays all the world over; and yet, for all that, the man does not throw his lamp contemptuously away, as if it were something absolutely antagonistic to the sun; but rather, when he has once found out its use, he will keep it with all the greater carefulness. Precisely in this way, then, the law of Moses served as a sort of guardian to the people, like the lamp, until the true Sun, who is our Saviour, should arise, even as the apostle also says to us: “And Christ shall give thee light.” We must look, however, to what is said further on: “Their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil in the reading of the Old Testament; it is untaken away, because it is done away in Christ. For even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit.” What, then, is meant by this? Is Moses present with us even unto this day? Is it the case that he has never slept, that he has never gone to his rest, that he has never departed this life? How is it that this phrase “unto this day” is used here? Well, only mark the veil, which is placed, where he says it is placed, on their hearts in their reading. This, therefore, is the word of censure upon the children of Israel, because they read Moses and yet do not understand him, and refuse to turn to the Lord; for it is He that was prophesied of by Moses as about to come. This, then, is the veil which was placed upon the face of Moses, and this also is his testament; for he says in the law: “A prince shall not be wanting from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until He come whose he is; and He will be the expectation of the nations: who shall bind His foal unto the vine, and His ass’s colt unto the choice vine; He shall wash His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes; His eyes shall be suffused with wine, and His teeth white with milk;” and so on. Moreover, he indicated who He was, and whence He was to come. For he said: “The Lord God will raise up unto you a Prophet from among your brethren, like unto me: unto Him hearken ye.” Now it is plain that this cannot be understood to have been said of Jesus the son of Nun. For there is nothing of this circumcision found in him. After him, too, there have still been kings from Judah; and consequently this prophecy is far from being applicable to him. And this is the veil which is on Moses; for it was not, as some among the unlearned perhaps fancy, any piece of linen cloth, or any skin that covered his face. But the apostle also takes care to make this plain to us, when he tells us that the veil is put on in the reading of the Old Testament, inasmuch as they who are called Israel from olden time still look for the coming of Christ, and perceive not that the princes have been wanting from Judah, and the leaders from his thighs; as even at present we see them in subjection to kings and princes, and paying tribute to these, without having any power left to them either of judgment or of punishment, such as Judah certainly had, for after he had condemned Thamar, he was able also to justify her. “But you will also see your life hang (in doubt) before your eyes.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Reading “propositus” for “propheticus.”
* ↑ The Codex Casinensis has formatum; the other codex gives firmatum.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iii. 7.
* ↑ The text gives, “neque vero omnigene in ignobilitatem redigitur,” etc. The Codex Bobiensis has, “neque vero omni genere in nobilitate.”
* ↑ Reading “scisse se differentias gloriæ,” etc. Codex Bobiensis gives scis esse, etc. = you know that there are differences.
* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 21.
* ↑ Sicut et verbi ipsius natura persuadet. Reading “natura persuadet.” But the Codex Bobiensis gives demonstrat, demonstrates.
* ↑ Eph. v. 14.
* ↑ Non revelatur quia in Christo destruitur.
* ↑ 2 Cor. iii. 14–17.
* ↑ Ex. xxxiv. 33; 2 Cor. iii. 13.
* ↑ The text is, “hoc est velamen, quod erat positum super faciem Moysi, quod est testamentum ejus,” etc.
* ↑ Gen. xlix. 10–12.
* ↑ The reading in the text is, “non deficiet princeps ex Juda, neque dux de femoribus ejus usquequo veniat,” etc. Codex Bobiensis coincides, only giving “de femore ejus.” On the whole quotation, which is given in forms so diverse among the old versions and fathers, see Novatian, De Trin., ch. 9 [vol. v. p. 618], and Cyprian, Adv. Judæos, i. 21 [vol. v. p. 513].
* ↑ The text gives, “veniat, cujus est,” etc. Prudentius Maranus on Justin’s Apology, i. § 32 [vol. i. p. 173, this series], thinks this was originally an error of transcription for cui jus est, which reading would correspond very much with the ᾧ ἀπόκειται of some of the most ancient authorities. See Cotelerius on the Constitut. Apostol., i. 1, and the note in Migne.
* ↑ Qui alligabit. But Codex Casinensis has “quia alligabit,” and Codex Bobiensis “qui alligavit.”
* ↑ Suffusi oculi. Codex Bobiensis gives “effusi oculi.” See, on the whole, Grabe’s Dissert. De variis vitiis LXX. interpret., 19, p. 36.
* ↑ Deut. xviii. 15.
* ↑ We adopt the reading “Jesu Nave.” But the Codex Bobiensis gives “Jesu Mane.” See a discussion on this name by Cotelerius on the Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 12. [Vol. i. p. 145, this series.]
* ↑ For circumcisionis Routh suggests circumstationis, which might perhaps be taken as = these surroundings do not suit him.
* ↑ Gen. xxxviii. 26. We read “justificare.” But the Codex Casinensis gives “justificari” = he (or she) could be justified.
* ↑ The text is, “sed et videbitis vitam vestram pendentem ante oculos vestros.” The reference is apparently to Deut. xxviii. 66.