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

[JonC]

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.

I agree about the stain of sin. But on the Day of Atonement two distinct issues are addressed - one with the sacrifice to God and one with the animal to Azazel.

Cleansing us from the stain of sin, from our unrighteousness, is not itself forgiveness. But carrying away those sins (those actions) from remembrance is forgiveness.

I believe this is important as the basis for forgiveness is the ultimate cleansing in Christ (what Leviticus foreshadows). We are made new creations, ultimately made righteous and in His image, glorified.

Our sins are therefore carried away. God forgives us.

 

[Ben1445]

No. The "cleansing", "washing", "purification" is related to contamination from people's unrighteousness.

So are you talking about atonement or washing. The words don’t mean the same thing.

Aaron made atonement for a tent.
He made atonement for the altar.
He then made atonement for the sins of the people.

Made an atonement is not the same as made a cleansing.

Perhaps this will answer your question -

In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness (Leviticus 16:16)

Atonement is appeasement. It is not the restoration of the person by washing. It is the
Restoration of the relationship between God and men.

A child doesn’t atone for his disobedience by cleaning the rug when he goes in the living room with koolaid and spills on the rug when his mom has told him don’t take food and drinks in the living room. Washing the rug takes care of the rug. It takes something more than that to atone for disobedience.

And verse 18-19

Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.

You could view this as cleansing from the uncleanness from sin and unrighteousness.

Consecration is not cleansing.

Consider God's words in Isaiah:

Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Stop doing evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor...

That says nothing about atonement.

I hope that helps.

I’m sorry but it doesn’t.

 

[JonC]

So are you talking about atonement or washing. The words don’t mean the same thing.

Made an atonement is not the same as made a cleansing.


Atonement is appeasement. It is not the restoration of the person by washing. It is the
Restoration of the relationship between God and men.

A child doesn’t atone for his disobedience by cleaning the rug when he goes in the living room with koolaid and spills on the rug when his mom has told him don’t take food and drinks in the living room. Washing the rug takes care of the rug. It takes something more than that to atone for disobedience.


Consecration is not cleansing.


That says nothing about atonement.


I’m sorry but it doesn’t.

Maybe this will help:

"on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you." (Leviticus 16:30)

Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. 19 He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Maybe this will help:

"on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you." (Leviticus 16:30)

The atonement is made first, and this brings about the cleansing. The scapegoat is sent away from the people and is said to 'bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land' (Lev.16:22). In the expression of 'a goat for Azazel' in lieu of 'sacapegoat,' 'Azazel' can have the meaning of 'a rocky precipice' or maybe 'complete destruction' or 'cutting off.' Some have suggested that it is the name of a goat demon, but this is surely unlikely since in Lev. 17:7, offerings to goat demons (or 'satyrs') are explicitly forbidden.
Thus the scapegoat is depicted in Lev. 16 as bearing away the sin and guilt of the Israelites and receiving in their place the punishment referenced in 2 Thes. 1:9, just like 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,' who suffered 'outside the gate.'

 

[JonC]

The atonement is made first, and this brings about the cleansing. The scapegoat is sent away from the people and is said to 'bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land' (Lev.16:22). In the expression of 'a goat for Azazel' in lieu of 'sacapegoat,' 'Azazel' can have the meaning of 'a rocky precipice' or maybe 'complete destruction' or 'cutting off.' Some have suggested that it is the name of a goat demon, but this is surely unlikely since in Lev. 17:7, offerings to goat demons (or 'satyrs') are explicitly forbidden.
Thus the scapegoat is depicted in Lev. 16 as bearing away the sin and guilt of the Israelites and receiving in their place the punishment referenced in 2 Thes. 1:9, just like 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,' who suffered 'outside the gate.'

"Azazel" can have many meanings. We do not know the meaning in the verse. I do not think it matters as it does not change the effect of the unharmed goat.

The "scapegoat" ("totegoat") does bear the sins (not the guilt, this is cleansed). This is forgiveness (the sins are taken away). No substitutionary death, no punishment of sins. The animal carries away the sins. The goat is not harmed.

The only animal that is killed is the goat dedicated to God. But the shedding of blood does not atone for the tent, the altar, or the people. The blood must be applied. Why? Because the blood represents life and foreshadows that Life through which we are cleansed of all unrighteousness.

Sins are not addressed by the atonement. They are addressed by the scapegoat.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The "scapegoat" ("totegoat") does bear the sins (not the guilt, this is cleansed). This is forgiveness (the sins are taken away). No substitutionary death, no punishment of sins. The animal carries away the sins. The goat is not harmed.

The scapegoat suffered the same fate as those who were to be 'cut off from their people' (e.g. Lev. 7:20, 21, 25, 27).

The only animal that is killed is the goat dedicated to God. But the shedding of blood does not atone for the tent, the altar, or the people. The blood must be applied. Why? Because the blood represents life and foreshadows that Life through which we are cleansed of all unrighteousness.

Sins are not addressed by the atonement. They are addressed by the scapegoat.

The life is in the blood and the shedding of blood speaks of the atonement for sins by the killing of the animals. The tent and the altar do not sin; they need to be cleansed because of their proximity to sinful people. '...[To] cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites' (Lev. 16:18-19).
In Numbers 25, kipper refers to the averting of God's wrath. Without writing out the whole episode, the slaying by Phinehas the priest of the fornicating couple turned aside God's wrath, 'because he was zealous for his God and made atonement [Heb. kipper] for the children of Israel' (Num. 25:13).

 

[Van]

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.)

1) Yes, I meant G2643, as used in Romans 5:11.

2) No, the New Covenant is not in the Old Covenant. That is why the OT saints were made perfect only under the New Covenant, and NOT under the Old Covenant.

3) No, nothing is scripture is in "favor" of false doctrine, certainly not PSA.

Christ died as a ransom for all, NOT for the fiction of previously chosen individuals, whose sins it is falsely claimed are the specific and only ones Christ died for, i.e. a ransom for some.

 

[Van]

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.

1) “Then Aaron shall offer the bull as the sin offering, which is for himself, so that he may make atonement for himself and for his household. Should be translated as "may make a temporary covering for himself and for his household. Kaphar does NOT provide "atonement" as described in Romans 5:11. The covering is only temporary and does NOT make the person "perfect" (sinless). Lev 16:6

2) But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat. Here the goat consecrated to carry away the sin penalty only provides a temporary covering for their sins. Again, the issue is the meaning of "atonement" as used in Romans 5:11.

3) The issue is NOT that various translations use the same English word (atonement) to describe what was accomplished under "kaphar" and under the Greek "katallage" but as indicated in the OP, the meanings are NOT the same. The Old Covenant (kaphar) provided a temporary covering whereas under the New Covenant in His Blood, katallage provided eternal sinlessness.

 

[JonC]

The scapegoat suffered the same fate as those who were to be 'cut off from their people' (e.g. Lev. 7:20, 21, 25, 27).

The life is in the blood and the shedding of blood speaks of the atonement for sins by the killing of the animals. The tent and the altar do not sin; they need to be cleansed because of their proximity to sinful people. '...[To] cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites' (Lev. 16:18-19).
In Numbers 25, kipper refers to the averting of God's wrath. Without writing out the whole episode, the slaying by Phinehas the priest of the fornicating couple turned aside God's wrath, 'because he was zealous for his God and made atonement [Heb. kipper] for the children of Israel' (Num. 25:13).

In Numbers it has the same meaning (cleansing, purifying, covering). But good example.

This is a great illustration of how Christ, enteting the Most Holy Place, cleansing us with His blood from all unrighteousness, turns aside God's wrath.

Notice that Phinehas, in making atonement, did not suffer God's wrath when it was turned aside. He propitiated on behalf of the people and God's wrath towards them ceased.

 

[JonC]

1) “Then Aaron shall offer the bull as the sin offering, which is for himself, so that he may make atonement for himself and for his household. Should be translated as "may make a temporary covering for himself and for his household. Kaphar does NOT provide "atonement" as described in Romans 5:11. The covering is only temporary and does NOT make the person "perfect" (sinless). Lev 16:6

2) But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat. Here the goat consecrated to carry away the sin penalty only provides a temporary covering for their sins. Again, the issue is the meaning of "atonement" as used in Romans 5:11.

3) The issue is NOT that various translations use the same English word (atonement) to describe what was accomplished under "kaphar" and under the Greek "katallage" but as indicated in the OP, the meanings are NOT the same. The Old Covenant (kaphar) provided a temporary covering whereas under the New Covenant in His Blood, katallage provided eternal sinlessness.

I view the OT atonement (Hebrew word for "cleansing, purifying, covering") as pointing to the greater NT atonement (Greek word for "reconciliation).

 

[Ben1445]

Maybe this will help:

"on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you." (Leviticus 16:30)

Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. 19 He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.

By the blood of the sacrifice. Because the Saviour gave His life as a substitute for us.
Because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

 

[Ben1445]

1) Yes, I meant G2643, as used in Romans 5:11.

2) No, the New Covenant is not in the Old Covenant. That is why the OT saints were made perfect only under the New Covenant, and NOT under the Old Covenant.

I never said it was. I said it is in the Old Testament. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare Greek and Hebrew the way you did.

3) No, nothing is scripture is in "favor" of false doctrine, certainly not PSA.

There is a penalty for sin. Jesus paid that penalty for us.
You don’t believe that?

Christ died as a ransom for all,

The scope is not something that has to do with PSA. Unless you can cite the guy who came up with it and show me it does, what difference does that make to PSA.

I just said the definition is a strong support for PSA.

NOT for the fiction of previously chosen individuals,

I never said that. I also agree with you.

whose sins it is falsely claimed are the specific and only ones Christ died for, i.e. a ransom for some.

I don’t believe that and have yet to see how Jesus paying the penalty for sin in the place of others need be limited.

The sin is covered. But God still imputes sin. Why may He if all sin is atoned for? Because of unbelief.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1) Yes, I meant G2643, as used in Romans 5:11.

2) No, the New Covenant is not in the Old Covenant. That is why the OT saints were made perfect only under the New Covenant, and NOT under the Old Covenant.

3) No, nothing is scripture is in "favor" of false doctrine, certainly not PSA.

Christ died as a ransom for all, NOT for the fiction of previously chosen individuals, whose sins it is falsely claimed are the specific and only ones Christ died for, i.e. a ransom for some.

Shouldn't it be 'a ransom for many'(Matthew 20:28 etc.)?

 

[JonC]

By the blood of the sacrifice. Because the Saviour gave His life as a substitute for us.
Because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

No. You are wrong. I think you just reacted without reading the passage.

1. This is the Levitical sacrifice system.
Jesus did not die in the Old Testament.

2. Obviously it does not include substitution. That would be meaningless in the Yom Kippur atonement system.

3. The atonement here had nothing to do with the remission of sins. The animal was slan and the blood was used to make atonement to cleans from defilement.

4. Sins were remitted by the live goat (the scapegoat) who carried the people's sins away.

Have you ever taken the time to read Leviticus 16?

If so you may see why I absolutely detest PSA (it makes a mockery of God).

 

[JonC]

@Ben1445

Here are excerpts of Leviticus 16 (what we were discussing). I can't post the entire chapter but if you have a Bible the atonement for the people begins at verse 15. If you do not own a bible you can reference it online, or if you need a hard copy (which I recommend) PM me and I will get you one.




Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the atoning cover and in front of the atoning cover. He shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall do so for the tent of meeting which remains with them in the midst of their impurities. Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it; ... With his finger he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it seven times and cleanse it, and consecrate it from the impurities of the sons of Israel.

20 “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. ...confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

“This shall be a permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble [yourselves and not do any work, whether the native, or the stranger who resides among you; for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the Lord.



As you can clearly see, there were two sacrifices.

One was killed and the blood was used to cleanse the tent of meeting, the altar, and the people of impurity due to sin.

The other goat was not harmed. This one bore the sins of the people, carried them away.

There was absolutely no substitution with the atonement. You could say the goat that carried the people's sins away represented their sins, I suppose.

But the important fact of this passage in regard to the atonement is the killing of the animal, while necessary, was not an atonement (it was a sacrifice for atonement). The blood cleansed the people (tent and altar) from the defilenent of sin. There is no substitution in atonement.

And the other fact you can take away (if you are faithful to God's Word) is it was the goat which remained alive that bore the people's sins and carried them away.


You will have to choose between your theory or tradition and God's words (the biblical text) as both cannot be true. I cannot choose for you. Nobody can. It falls to each of us individually to work out our salvation and choose who to follow.


If you need a hard copy of Scripture PM me and let me know which translation you prefer (and where to send it).