Hebrew Word Study - "Kaphar" (Strong's H3722)

[Van]

Our Word, frequently translated as "atonement" needs to well understood if we are to understand the gospel of Christ.

The Hebrew word appears about 103 times in the Old Testament, so its meaning is confined to the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant.
That is why translating the Old Covenant word (kaphar) using the same English word as for the New Testament word (katallage G2644) creates confusion out of clarity! In Romans 5:11, "katallage) refers to receiving the reconciliation provided by Christ's sacrifice, whereas the Hebrew word "kaphar" never refers to receiving the reconciliation provided by Christ's sacrifice.

What did the animal sacrifice blood provide under the Old Covenant? A temporary "covering" of the consequence of sin, NOT the removal of that consequence. That is why the OT Saints had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect, with their sin burden removed, not just temporarily covered.

 

[Ben1445]

Did you mean G2643?

g2643. καταλλαγή katallagē; from 2644; exchange (figuratively, adjustment), i.e. restoration to (the divine) favor: — atonement, reconciliation(-ing).
AV (4) - reconciliation 2, atonement 1, reconciling 1;
exchangeof the business of money changers, exchanging equivalent values
adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favourin the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ

g2644. καταλλάσσω katallassō; from 2596 and 236; to change mutually, i.e. (figuratively) to compound a difference: — reconcile.
AV (6) - reconcile 6;
to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivalent valueto reconcile (those who are at variance)return to favour with, be reconciled to oneto receive one into favour




May I also remind you that the new covenant is in the Old Testament?

And G2643 is a strong statement in the favor of PSA. (For those who are interested, just saying.)

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

May I also remind you that the new covenant is in the Old Testament?

Jeremiah 31?

 

[Ben1445]

Jeremiah 31?

Among others.

I might be taken to task for it and that is fine, but Jesus has always been the real answer in the new covenant and the old covenant did not supply salvation and never could.

So atonement has been taught as a covering since Adam and Eve received clothing. Obviously that wouldn’t be a permanent solution. As Paul says, the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. So the offerings for atonement were never considered permanent because they were offered yearly. But that doesn’t mean that the word cannot be used to describe the new covenant. It means that the temporary sacrifice could not apply in the new covenant.

I just find it unreasonable to say that a Greek word is unacceptable because the OT and the old covenant were written in Hebrew. I wouldn’t expect to find the Hebrew in the NT. It is mostly Greek.

But God always wanted His law in the hearts of men.

2 Corinthians 3:3
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Deuteronomy 11:18
Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

Proverbs 3:3
Let not mercy and truth forsake thee:
bind them about thy neck;
write them upon the table of thine heart:

Proverbs 7:3
Bind them upon thy fingers,
write them upon the table of thine heart.


Deuteronomy 6:8
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.


The Law of God and His wisdom should be and was supposed to be in the hearts of men affecting everything that they desired, the way that they saw the world, and the way they did their business with their hands.

It was in the Old Covenant and it is in the New Covenant. The Old instruction was for men to write them in their hearts.

The New has God writing on our hearts. We have the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit. We have God teaching and writing His laws in our hearts.

 

[Ascetic X]

Isaiah 53 contains the gospel.

 

[Ben1445]

Sorry, i strayed a bit.

 

[JonC]

Our Word, frequently translated as "atonement" needs to well understood if we are to understand the gospel of Christ.

The Hebrew word appears about 103 times in the Old Testament, so its meaning is confined to the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant.
That is why translating the Old Covenant word (kaphar) using the same English word as for the New Testament word (katallage G2644) creates confusion out of clarity! In Romans 5:11, "katallage) refers to receiving the reconciliation provided by Christ's sacrifice, whereas the Hebrew word "kaphar" never refers to receiving the reconciliation provided by Christ's sacrifice.

What did the animal sacrifice blood provide under the Old Covenant? A temporary "covering" of the consequence of sin, NOT the removal of that consequence. That is why the OT Saints had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect, with their sin burden removed, not just temporarily covered.

Looking up Kippur, seems it can mean "to wash", "to cover", to cancel". But it serms it is most associated with the Day of Atonement (cleansing in Lev 16) and viewed in the Hebrew religion as "to reconcile".

I do not get how we go from that to the idea it means appeasement or forgiveness. The priest "made atonement" for the tent of meeting, for the altar, and then for the sins of the people. But this was cleansing.

Forgiveness (sins taken away as opposed to cleansing from the unrighteousness that caused the sin) was accomplished on the Day of Atonement by the goat that was not killed.

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

Now that we are on this topic, I wanted to ask you a question about your view. I realize we will disagree, but putting that aside I would like to understand your position.

You once defined atonement as "life for life".

Reading Leviticus 16 about the Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of the slain animal and made atonement.

He "made atonement" for (1) the tent of meeting, (2) the altar, and finally (3) the sins of the people.

How do you view the making of atonement for the tent of meeting and the altar?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Anthony Pritchard

Now that we are on this topic, I wanted to ask you a question about your view. I realize we will disagree, but putting that aside I would like to understand your position.

You once defined atonement as "life for life".

Reading Leviticus 16 about the Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of the slain animal and made atonement.

He "made atonement" for (1) the tent of meeting, (2) the altar, and finally (3) the sins of the people.

How do you view the making of atonement for the tent of meeting and the altar?

Atonement is the restoration of relationship , the removal of what disrupts access.

 

[JonC]

Atonement is the restoration of relationship , the removal of what disrupts access.

I typically refer to it is "teconciliation" (same thing).

I just wondered as I had not previously noted how many times the priest "made atonement" for something other than the sins of the people (but it is their unrighteousness that defiled those things).

 

[JonC]

People view things differently. That is a given.

I view Scripture as progressively revealing God's redemptive history. We see the problem of sin. We see God rescuing Noah. We see God delivering His people from bomdage, death passing over due to the blood. We see offerings and sacrifices as gifts of obedience. We see the blood of sacrifices cleansing from unrighteousness. All through this there are hints of forgiveness.

The most holy day for the Hebrew people is Yom Kippur (the "Day of Atonement" or "Day of cleansing"). This is the complete picture of the Levitical system, combining all of the previous aspects with the inclusion of forgiveness (sins being taken away).

In my opinion the Day of Atonement foreshadows the work of Christ. I understand many here disagree with me, and that is fine. We do not have to agree.

If we do not mix passages, confuse orders... if we do not "monkey" with Leviticus 16 to make the passages fit into any theory...I believe we arrive at an accurate picture of redemption.

1. The high priest cleansed himself of his unrighteousness. This is not what Christ as High Priest did as He is righteous. Hebrews uses this to demonstrate how much greater a High Priest we have in Christ.

2. An animal was offered as a "gift of obedience". This animal was killed, its blood shed.

3. Then the high priest took the blood to the Tabernacle to enter through the blood of this animal.

4. The priest made atonement for the tent of meeting. The priest made atonement for the alter. Then the priest made atonement for the sins of the people.

5. After atonement had been completed to "cleanse" the people of unrighteousness the priest lay his hands on another goat.

6. This was the living goat that symbolically bore the sins the people had committed and carried them away, to be remembered no more. This is forgiveness.

 

[Ascetic X]

People view things differently. That is a given.

I view Scripture as progressively revealing God's redemptive history. We see the problem of sin. We see God rescuing Noah. We see God delivering His people from bomdage, death passing over due to the blood. We see offerings and sacrifices as gifts of obedience. We see the blood of sacrifices cleansing from unrighteousness. All through this there are hints of forgiveness.

The most holy day for the Hebrew people is Yom Kippur (the "Day of Atonement" or "Day of cleansing"). This is the complete picture of the Levitical system, combining all of the previous aspects with the inclusion of forgiveness (sins being taken away).

In my opinion the Day of Atonement foreshadows the work of Christ. I understand many here disagree with me, and that is fine. We do not have to agree.

If we do not mix passages, confuse orders... if we do not "monkey" with Leviticus 16 to make the passages fit into any theory...I believe we arrive at an accurate picture of redemption.

1. The high priest cleansed himself of his unrighteousness. This is not what Christ as High Priest did as He is righteous. Hebrews uses this to demonstrate how much greater a High Priest we have in Christ.

2. An animal was offered as a "gift of obedience". This animal was killed, its blood shed.

3. Then the high priest took the blood to the Tabernacle to enter through the blood of this animal.

4. The priest made atonement for the tent of meeting. The priest made atonement for the alter. Then the priest made atonement for the sins of the people.

5. After atonement had been completed to "cleanse" the people of unrighteousness the priest lay his hands on another goat.

6. This was the living goat that symbolically bore the sins the people had committed and carried them away, to be remembered no more. This is forgiveness.

Why did the tent and the altar need atonement? What sins did the tent and altar commit?

 

[JonC]

Why did the tent and the altar need atonement? What sins did the tent and altar commit?

The atonement is not about sins but unrighteousness. It is about cleansing (atonement in the NT is "reconciliation", in the OT the word is "to cleans", "to wash", or "to cover"). God tells us in Leviticus 16 atonement cleanses.

The tent would be defiled by the unrighteousness of men just like touching a dead body makes one unclean. Atonement has to do with purity.

The part dealing with sins is the goat that is not killed. This goat carries the sins away (forgiveness).

 

[Ascetic X]

The atonement is not about sins but unrighteousness. It is about cleansing (atonement in the NT is "reconciliation", in the OT the word is "to cleans", "to wash", or "to cover"). God tells us in Leviticus 16 atonement cleanses.

The tent would be defiled by the unrighteousness of men just like touching a dead body makes one unclean. Atonement has to do with purity.

The part dealing with sins is the goat that is not killed. This goat carries the sins away (forgiveness).

What is the difference between sins and unrighteousness?

 

[JonC]

What is the difference between sins and unrighteousness?

Some would say Sin (capital S) vs sins.

Sins are manifestations of unrighteousness. Jesus spoke of a bad tree bearing bad fruit. Sins are the bad fruit produced by the bad tree (unrighteousness).

Think of it this way... a murderer murders. Murdering does not make the man a murderer (the hate that led to the act majes the man a murderer).

Christ's blood cleanses us ftom all unrighteousness. We are made new creations in Christ. We die to sin and are made alive in the spirit.

Our sins (the bad actions) are forgiven.

God will not forgive unrighteousness (it is an identity). God does forgive sins based on our being "in Christ" and He as the Guaranteor of who we will become.

Sins are unrighteousness acts. Unrighteousness is the state that produces those unrighteousness acts.

 

[Ascetic X]

Some would say Sin (capital S) vs sins.

Sins are manifestations of unrighteousness. Jesus spoke of a bad tree bearing bad fruit. Sins are the bad fruit produced by the bad tree (unrighteousness).

Think of it this way... a murderer murders. Murdering does not make the man a murderer (the hate that led to the act majes the man a murderer).

Christ's blood cleanses us ftom all unrighteousness. We are made new creations in Christ. We die to sin and are made alive in the spirit.

Our sins (the bad actions) are forgiven.

God will not forgive unrighteousness (it is an identity). God does forgive sins based on our being "in Christ" and He as the Guaranteor of who we will become.

Sins are unrighteousness acts. Unrighteousness is the state that produces those unrighteousness acts.

In this verse, I suspected that unrighteousness was a stain on our souls from sinful actions.

This phrase emphasizes the comprehensive nature of God's redemptive work, which not only forgives but also purifies, enabling believers to live in righteousness and holiness.

I John 1:9

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

[Ben1445]

I do not get how we go from that to the idea it means appeasement or forgiveness. The priest "made atonement" for the tent of meeting, for the altar, and then for the sins of the people. But this was cleansing.

You seriously think that you atone your laundry?

 

[Ben1445]

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.