The Hebrew word for mercy seat 'kapōreṯ' also is related to 'kāp̄ar', because it covers the ark of the covenant. In Romans 3.25 Jesus is supposed to be the 'hilasterion', which serves in the Septuagint as translation for kapōreṯ.
The most important lesson is that "atonement" does not mean to transfer punishment onto an innocent substitute. In Proverbs 16.6 it says "through love and faithfulness, sin is atoned for," meaning acts of love make a kind of reparation. Thus when Peter says "love COVERS a multitude of sins" (1Pet4) this likely also refers to atonement.
Thank you. The problem with using ‘atonement’ or ‘atone’ is that this is a word implying ‘reconciliation’ in English, to make as one. So, it introduces a different concept.
Very interesting! I really appreciate videos like this. Have you interacted with Andrew Rilleras “Lamb of the Free”? I’m curious what your thoughts would be
@@BiblingoappCan you do a review of the Hebrew word and words for "person". Regardless of what people believe about a Trinity there's no way to say one God in three PERSONS in Hebrew without making the Father and Spirit from Adam, e.g. Ben Adam, Ish (from the Adamah), Enush (frail or mortal). I have seen gever used, as in two geverim in heaven, but that's still not "person". If you have a suggestion let us know.
Lev 16:30 gives the definition of kapar. It is purging / cleansing.. The NT and especially Hebrews letter repeatedly indicate the blood of animals and of Jesus purges or cleanses - from sin. And so we are delivered from sin. We need cleansing and deliverance from sin because without holiness we shall mot see God.
In Arabic "kafara" means "cover, hide." The letters correspond to the Hebrew word, but the meaning of "cover, hide" may not belong to the semantic notion of to "expiate, atone." While some suggest this is at the heart of the idea, it is probable that in Hebrew we are dealing with two separate roots, homonyms, which unfortunately have been put together under one heading in the dictionaries. There was a word kapar which meant "cover," and another which meant "atone, expiate, propitiate." In the Old Testament there is only one passage where the qal form of the verb is used with the meaning "cover, pitch," and that is Genesis 6:14. When Noah built the ark, he pitched it, covered (the leaky areas) with bitumen. On the other hand, there are over ninety passages where the piel form is used with the idea of "expiate, atone, propitiate" or the like. So we have two roots that must be kept separate. So, often what happens is there is a conflation of two separate words with the same letters but mean two different things.
Right, there is only one instance of כָפַר (Qal), but the root is actually the same in כִּפֶּר (Piel). We would expect the two words to have similar ideas, though not necessarily identical because they do share the same root. The exact meaning of the Piel template is debated, but there is sometimes little difference in meaning with the verb in Qal with the same root. I think that is probably what is going on here. We have clear instances of both verbs meaning to physically cover something.
Excellent video. Thank you. At around the 5-min mark, you apply the term according to a substitutionary model of atonement that I personally think is a bit thin, though typical of a generally Protestant view. Man-X owes his life to God on account of sin, so he sacrifices Victim-Y in place of himself, and God accepts that sacrifice as a substitute. I think, though, that the biblical view of sacrifice is first of all self-gift to a God who loves us into being and calls us to love him in return. Sin moves in the opposite direction, and in our sin, sacrifice becomes difficult for us, so we need special assistance is turning us back to the proper posture and movement for which we were created. In the end, the victim offered isn't properly a substitute for the one who offers the sacrifice but a means through which he can begin to make the self-offering his sinfulness resists. The one offering the sacrifice is carried within and expressed through the victim.
I think purify works better as a translation. Sin is literally a mistake. You can sin unintentionally. The altar can "sin," via exposure to ritual impurities (dead things, females during their menses or after giving birth, men who have had emissions, people who have been such things, & more). Cover implies the sin is still there, under something. Covering would mean not being really cleansed from the world, or even from the person (or object), but just sort of buried or hidden (under the cover). Purify seems a lot closer. But I do agree that "atonement" as a translation does feel like it breaks down when this is referring to inanimate objects.
At 3:44 you say that "the word atone works only for XXX seventeen." Did you say "Numbers seventeen"? Or what did you say? And what did you mean?? Thanks.
Since the word 'atonement' was created in the 14th to 17th century AD, at least according to what I can find, then using it as the equivalent to the Hebrew word is at best an artificial fit.
Your video is timely for me. Please, I am desperate for your clear answer on the following: Do the animal sacrifices of Leviticus 3, the "Peace Offerings" (as KJV has it) provide "atonement" (or "covering", if you prefer)? Even if just in a technical sense. This is a critical question in our Bible study group. I say that Lev. 3 Peace Offerings do indeed provide "atonement". My brother says it does not. He says Lev. 1:4 about hand on head of animal meaning that animal is accepted to provide atonement for the offeror ONLY APPLIES to the Burnt Offering of Leviticus 1. My take on this is that Lev. 1:4, the ONLY place where laying on of hand on the animal's head is defined, explains what that means in all cases, thus also applies to Leviticus 3 Peace Offerings. I have further questions that I'd really really like to discuss with you about Leviticus 1 thru 5. Is there a preferred way I can communicate with you to submit further query. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
The sweet-smelling offerings (Burnt offering, grain offering, meat offering, peace offering) were voluntary offerings and were for worship. That was how God required that they worshiped Him then.
There is no “kapar” (AKA atonement) mentioned in Leviticus 3. I also wouldn’t identify the “laying of the hand on the head” practice as what leads to atonement, but rather as a ritualistic signal that the offering being presented is one’s own. The “laying on of the hand” practice is never defined in scripture though. We see a number of different uses for it. - Hands on the head to bestow blessings (Genesis 48:14-17) - One hand on the head in a number of the animal gifts (Leviticus 1:4, Leviticus 3:2, Leviticus 4:4, etc.) - Hands on the heads of animals for the purposes of consecration and ordination (Exodus 29) - Two hands on the head of the goat that was sent away on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:21) - Hands on the head of a human before stoning him (Leviticus 24:14) - Hands on the Levites when offering them to the Lord for service (Numbers 8:10) - Moses laying hands on Joshua (Numbers 27:23, Deuteronomy 34:9) - Jesus and the apostles laying their hands on people to heal them (Mark 6:5, Luke 13:13, Acts 28:8, etc.) - the apostles laying their hands on people to bestow gifts (1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6) As you can see there are a lot of different uses of the practice of “laying on of hands” in the Bible and I haven’t even listed them all. If you don’t mind sharing, what is at the heart of the disagreement between you and your brother?
Thanks for your question. It is important to recognize that this debate at least in part depends on how you define atonement to begin with. Leviticus 1:4 is the only clear case where a burnt offering is said to provide "atonement," but I would argue that "atonement" here is not about sin (and so is not the normal way we think about "atonement"). Sin is not mentioned until Leviticus 4. The first three offerings in Lev 1-3 are sacrifices that are made in all kinds of other contexts besides the tabernacle/temple cult. They certainly do not always make "atonement." My personal position is that they normally do not. I do not think the single hand lean necessarily carries the idea of atonement. I think it is about transference of possession to God. The double hand lean we see on the day of atonement with the confession of sin is about transference of sin to the scapegoat.
Obviously the word is being used with more meaning than physically covering something, and in English the word "atone" does not somehow exclude the idea of morally "covering" for something. It seems you are greatly oversimplifying the issues and coming up with an unnecessary conclusion. Also there is another point. Although we can deduce "morally cover" is a range of the meaning, it does not logically necessitate the word came from the same word for physically cover, as there may have been a divergent etymology of a similar word that happened to be spelled identically.
The most important holiday in the Jewish calendar is Yom Kippur, which is usually translated "Day of Atonement." Kippur is a grammatical form of the verb you've been talking about. So . . . are you saying that Yom Kippur is better understood as "Day of Covering" ???
Possibly, it would depend on what you meant by "Day of covering." That day refers to the day in which the high priest goes into the holy of holies and covers the place where God dwells. I do think such an understanding makes sense. However, it is also the day in which atonement is made for the people's sins. My argument is that "cover" can apply to both of these scenarios. So the "Day of covering/atonement" would be the day when the priest covers things in the temple/tabernacle and the day when the people's sins are covered for.
But just as a reminder, I do not think "Kippur" means "covering" or "atonement". It means "Kippur" and only imperfect maps onto either of those English words.
@@Biblingoapp Some linguistic gymnastics I once came across: We know that Ancient Hebrew writing exclude vowels. If we take vowels out of COVER, we have CVR or KVR, which is very similar to KPR. There's the claim that English Alpha-Bets are descendants of Semitic/Hebrew Alef-Bet; and some English words are also descendants of some Semitic/Hebrew words, cover/KVR being one of them. Also some theologians think blood which is a symbol of life "washes" away death which is the result of sin. So, "covering" sin could be a symbolic washing away. I think the Shekinah in the Holy of Holies is raw/pure Life in whose presence death must not be.
So Aaron took it, just as Moses had spoken, and |ran into the midst of the assembly. And behold, the stroke had started among the people. He put the incense on it and made a propitiatory shelter over the people. He stood between the dead and the living, and the stroke was restrained. - Concordant Literal Old Testament
I think you're trying to pigeonhole כפר into one or the other hole. And it's messing with the results of this linguistic double slit experiment, so that we can't see the true pattern (semantic) of the one photon (word) going through (translated by) the two holes (English words). Cover is a fairly intuitive word, applicable to any class of noun... but what does "atone/atonement" really mean, and why is it therefore only for persons, not places and things? On this you were weak and overly reliant upon colloquial intuition (that may not be common to all in the audience). What would the motive have been for this _pedagogy_ of English translation? By your omission of this point, you act as though this was simply an error or else a petty misleading of readers. For all you say about it, "to atone" was a synonym for "to cover" for English speakers hundreds of years ago (probably not). It remains that this inheritance was passed on according to the 3rd/4th Commandment (Exod. 20:12), so perhaps one should check for a good reason for it so as to merit the promise (Eph. 6:2-3).
When you think of the word "atonement", think "at-one-ment" that is striving to be "at one" with our maker. To do that, we listen to Paul to bring into captivity "every thought to the obedience of Christ" or to keep our thought "Christ-like". Jesus told us in his sermon on the mount to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and to love our neighbor as ourselves. So, atonement isn't a mere verbal assent or request to remove our sins, but the actual change in character to give up hatred, criticism, jealousy, fear, lies, deception, selfishness and other character flaws and to take on the "mind of Christ" as we are encouraged to do throughout the New Testament. Discussing the "atonement" ascribed to inanimate objects as the speaker relates is rather irrelevant when compared to our own salvation. Rites, rituals, creeds do not honor Christ but are "virtue" signaling, as in the movie "The Godfather" when Michael Corleone is having his child baptized while arranging the murder of his enemies.
Kaf, Pe, Resh - cover , PROTECT ChoPheR - a Bribe to cover a legal distortion, wrong in 1 Samuel 12:3. If a sin can be attonef for it means that the negative results are anhulled. Not all sons can be attoned.
Some linguistic gymnastics I once came across: Ancient Hebrew writing usually exclude vowels. If we take vowels out of COVER, we have CVR or KVR, which is very similar to KPR. There's the claim that English Alpha-Bets are descendants of Semitic/Hebrew Alef-Bet; and some English words are also descendants of some Semitic/Hebrew words.
The Hebrew word for mercy seat 'kapōreṯ' also is related to 'kāp̄ar', because it covers the ark of the covenant. In Romans 3.25 Jesus is supposed to be the 'hilasterion', which serves in the Septuagint as translation for kapōreṯ.
The most important lesson is that "atonement" does not mean to transfer punishment onto an innocent substitute. In Proverbs 16.6 it says "through love and faithfulness, sin is atoned for," meaning acts of love make a kind of reparation. Thus when Peter says "love COVERS a multitude of sins" (1Pet4) this likely also refers to atonement.
Thank you this is helpful ❤
You just understood the Catholic Christian idea of atonement.
Thank you. The problem with using ‘atonement’ or ‘atone’ is that this is a word implying ‘reconciliation’ in English, to make as one. So, it introduces a different concept.
Great video, gen 6:14 where the word is used both as the subject and verb in "cover" with "pitch" started to help me make sense of the word.
Very interesting! I really appreciate videos like this. Have you interacted with Andrew Rilleras “Lamb of the Free”? I’m curious what your thoughts would be
a wonderfully mindblowing read!
I have not "interacted" with it, and I am only mildly familiar with it. It's on my list to look into in more detail though!
@@BiblingoappCan you do a review of the Hebrew word and words for "person". Regardless of what people believe about a Trinity there's no way to say one God in three PERSONS in Hebrew without making the Father and Spirit from Adam, e.g. Ben Adam, Ish (from the Adamah), Enush (frail or mortal). I have seen gever used, as in two geverim in heaven, but that's still not "person". If you have a suggestion let us know.
This makes better sense ahead of atonement. Thanks for sharing this.
Another great video ! I love your unique insight.
Great video Kevin!
Lev 16:30 gives the definition of kapar. It is purging / cleansing..
The NT and especially Hebrews letter repeatedly indicate the blood of animals and of Jesus purges or cleanses - from sin. And so we are delivered from sin. We need cleansing and deliverance from sin because without holiness we shall mot see God.
In Arabic "kafara" means "cover, hide." The letters correspond to the Hebrew word, but the meaning of "cover, hide" may not belong to the semantic notion of to "expiate, atone." While some suggest this is at the heart of the idea, it is probable that in Hebrew we are dealing with two separate roots, homonyms, which unfortunately have been put together under one heading in the dictionaries. There was a word kapar which meant "cover," and another which meant "atone, expiate, propitiate." In the Old Testament there is only one passage where the qal form of the verb is used with the meaning "cover, pitch," and that is Genesis 6:14. When Noah built the ark, he pitched it, covered (the leaky areas) with bitumen. On the other hand, there are over ninety passages where the piel form is used with the idea of "expiate, atone, propitiate" or the like. So we have two roots that must be kept separate.
So, often what happens is there is a conflation of two separate words with the same letters but mean two different things.
That's very interesting. Thank you! I'm impressed with your erudition.
Right, there is only one instance of כָפַר (Qal), but the root is actually the same in כִּפֶּר (Piel). We would expect the two words to have similar ideas, though not necessarily identical because they do share the same root. The exact meaning of the Piel template is debated, but there is sometimes little difference in meaning with the verb in Qal with the same root. I think that is probably what is going on here. We have clear instances of both verbs meaning to physically cover something.
@@BiblingoappDoes God vindicate after the sacrifice?
What about using the metaphor of "cleansing"? To describe an erasure of pollution?
Excellent video. Thank you. At around the 5-min mark, you apply the term according to a substitutionary model of atonement that I personally think is a bit thin, though typical of a generally Protestant view. Man-X owes his life to God on account of sin, so he sacrifices Victim-Y in place of himself, and God accepts that sacrifice as a substitute. I think, though, that the biblical view of sacrifice is first of all self-gift to a God who loves us into being and calls us to love him in return. Sin moves in the opposite direction, and in our sin, sacrifice becomes difficult for us, so we need special assistance is turning us back to the proper posture and movement for which we were created. In the end, the victim offered isn't properly a substitute for the one who offers the sacrifice but a means through which he can begin to make the self-offering his sinfulness resists. The one offering the sacrifice is carried within and expressed through the victim.
Noah “pitched the ark” with pitch. Which is quite fascinating when you think about it. Pitch the verb means to cover.
I think purify works better as a translation. Sin is literally a mistake. You can sin unintentionally. The altar can "sin," via exposure to ritual impurities (dead things, females during their menses or after giving birth, men who have had emissions, people who have been such things, & more).
Cover implies the sin is still there, under something. Covering would mean not being really cleansed from the world, or even from the person (or object), but just sort of buried or hidden (under the cover). Purify seems a lot closer. But I do agree that "atonement" as a translation does feel like it breaks down when this is referring to inanimate objects.
At 3:44 you say that "the word atone works only for XXX seventeen." Did you say "Numbers seventeen"? Or what did you say? And what did you mean?? Thanks.
I think yes he is referring to Numbers 17 story about Aaron and need for priestly atonement
Yes, Numbers 17
Cover for == Satisfy ?
Since the word 'atonement' was created in the 14th to 17th century AD, at least according to what I can find,
then using it as the equivalent to the Hebrew word is at best an artificial fit.
Your video is timely for me. Please, I am desperate for your clear answer on the following: Do the animal sacrifices of Leviticus 3, the "Peace Offerings" (as KJV has it) provide "atonement" (or "covering", if you prefer)? Even if just in a technical sense. This is a critical question in our Bible study group. I say that Lev. 3 Peace Offerings do indeed provide "atonement". My brother says it does not. He says Lev. 1:4 about hand on head of animal meaning that animal is accepted to provide atonement for the offeror ONLY APPLIES to the Burnt Offering of Leviticus 1. My take on this is that Lev. 1:4, the ONLY place where laying on of hand on the animal's head is defined, explains what that means in all cases, thus also applies to Leviticus 3 Peace Offerings. I have further questions that I'd really really like to discuss with you about Leviticus 1 thru 5. Is there a preferred way I can communicate with you to submit further query. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
The sweet-smelling offerings (Burnt offering, grain offering, meat offering, peace offering) were voluntary offerings and were for worship. That was how God required that they worshiped Him then.
There is no “kapar” (AKA atonement) mentioned in Leviticus 3. I also wouldn’t identify the “laying of the hand on the head” practice as what leads to atonement, but rather as a ritualistic signal that the offering being presented is one’s own. The “laying on of the hand” practice is never defined in scripture though. We see a number of different uses for it.
- Hands on the head to bestow blessings (Genesis 48:14-17)
- One hand on the head in a number of the animal gifts (Leviticus 1:4, Leviticus 3:2, Leviticus 4:4, etc.)
- Hands on the heads of animals for the purposes of consecration and ordination (Exodus 29)
- Two hands on the head of the goat that was sent away on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:21)
- Hands on the head of a human before stoning him (Leviticus 24:14)
- Hands on the Levites when offering them to the Lord for service (Numbers 8:10)
- Moses laying hands on Joshua (Numbers 27:23, Deuteronomy 34:9)
- Jesus and the apostles laying their hands on people to heal them (Mark 6:5, Luke 13:13, Acts 28:8, etc.)
- the apostles laying their hands on people to bestow gifts (1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6)
As you can see there are a lot of different uses of the practice of “laying on of hands” in the Bible and I haven’t even listed them all. If you don’t mind sharing, what is at the heart of the disagreement between you and your brother?
I would think the offerings all represented different things. A sin offering, due to its name. seems more directly involved in atonement.
Thanks for your question. It is important to recognize that this debate at least in part depends on how you define atonement to begin with. Leviticus 1:4 is the only clear case where a burnt offering is said to provide "atonement," but I would argue that "atonement" here is not about sin (and so is not the normal way we think about "atonement"). Sin is not mentioned until Leviticus 4. The first three offerings in Lev 1-3 are sacrifices that are made in all kinds of other contexts besides the tabernacle/temple cult. They certainly do not always make "atonement." My personal position is that they normally do not.
I do not think the single hand lean necessarily carries the idea of atonement. I think it is about transference of possession to God. The double hand lean we see on the day of atonement with the confession of sin is about transference of sin to the scapegoat.
Strong’s concordance agrees with you.
Obviously the word is being used with more meaning than physically covering something, and in English the word "atone" does not somehow exclude the idea of morally "covering" for something. It seems you are greatly oversimplifying the issues and coming up with an unnecessary conclusion. Also there is another point. Although we can deduce "morally cover" is a range of the meaning, it does not logically necessitate the word came from the same word for physically cover, as there may have been a divergent etymology of a similar word that happened to be spelled identically.
The most important holiday in the Jewish calendar is Yom Kippur, which is usually translated "Day of Atonement." Kippur is a grammatical form of the verb you've been talking about. So . . . are you saying that Yom Kippur is better understood as "Day of Covering" ???
Possibly, it would depend on what you meant by "Day of covering." That day refers to the day in which the high priest goes into the holy of holies and covers the place where God dwells. I do think such an understanding makes sense. However, it is also the day in which atonement is made for the people's sins. My argument is that "cover" can apply to both of these scenarios. So the "Day of covering/atonement" would be the day when the priest covers things in the temple/tabernacle and the day when the people's sins are covered for.
But just as a reminder, I do not think "Kippur" means "covering" or "atonement". It means "Kippur" and only imperfect maps onto either of those English words.
@@Biblingoapp
Some linguistic gymnastics I once came across: We know that Ancient Hebrew writing exclude vowels. If we take vowels out of COVER, we have CVR or KVR, which is very similar to KPR.
There's the claim that English Alpha-Bets are descendants of Semitic/Hebrew Alef-Bet; and some English words are also descendants of some Semitic/Hebrew words, cover/KVR being one of them.
Also some theologians think blood which is a symbol of life "washes" away death which is the result of sin. So, "covering" sin could be a symbolic washing away.
I think the Shekinah in the Holy of Holies is raw/pure Life in whose presence death must not be.
So Aaron took it, just as Moses had spoken, and |ran into the midst of the assembly. And behold, the stroke had started among the people. He put the incense on it and made a propitiatory shelter over the people. He stood between the dead and the living, and the stroke was restrained. - Concordant Literal Old Testament
So if you know Hebrew why do you show Scriptures with *altered* wording?
Maybe recover is better. Or restore.
I think you're trying to pigeonhole כפר into one or the other hole. And it's messing with the results of this linguistic double slit experiment, so that we can't see the true pattern (semantic) of the one photon (word) going through (translated by) the two holes (English words).
Cover is a fairly intuitive word, applicable to any class of noun... but what does "atone/atonement" really mean, and why is it therefore only for persons, not places and things? On this you were weak and overly reliant upon colloquial intuition (that may not be common to all in the audience).
What would the motive have been for this _pedagogy_ of English translation? By your omission of this point, you act as though this was simply an error or else a petty misleading of readers. For all you say about it, "to atone" was a synonym for "to cover" for English speakers hundreds of years ago (probably not). It remains that this inheritance was passed on according to the 3rd/4th Commandment (Exod. 20:12), so perhaps one should check for a good reason for it so as to merit the promise (Eph. 6:2-3).
When you think of the word "atonement", think "at-one-ment" that is striving to be "at one" with our maker. To do that, we listen to Paul to bring into captivity "every thought to the obedience of Christ" or to keep our thought "Christ-like". Jesus told us in his sermon on the mount to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and to love our neighbor as ourselves. So, atonement isn't a mere verbal assent or request to remove our sins, but the actual change in character to give up hatred, criticism, jealousy, fear, lies, deception, selfishness and other character flaws and to take on the "mind of Christ" as we are encouraged to do throughout the New Testament. Discussing the "atonement" ascribed to inanimate objects as the speaker relates is rather irrelevant when compared to our own salvation. Rites, rituals, creeds do not honor Christ but are "virtue" signaling, as in the movie "The Godfather" when Michael Corleone is having his child baptized while arranging the murder of his enemies.
Kaf, Pe, Resh - cover , PROTECT ChoPheR - a Bribe to cover a legal distortion, wrong in 1 Samuel 12:3. If a sin can be attonef for it means that the negative results are anhulled. Not all sons can be attoned.
Some linguistic gymnastics I once came across: Ancient Hebrew writing usually exclude vowels. If we take vowels out of COVER, we have CVR or KVR, which is very similar to KPR.
There's the claim that English Alpha-Bets are descendants of Semitic/Hebrew Alef-Bet; and some English words are also descendants of some Semitic/Hebrew words.
I would rather know what it means in English
That must be frustrating