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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 ❤
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!
Another great video ! I love your unique insight.
This makes better sense ahead of atonement. Thanks for sharing this.
Strong’s concordance agrees with you.
Great video Kevin!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I would rather know what it means in English
That must be frustrating