Nakedness, Covering and Atonement

[Martin Marprelate]

I thought it might be interesting to discuss these three words in the light of discussions and non-discussions elsewhere.

Perhaps we might start with the Hebrew verb kapar or kaphar (Strongs 3722). This is a verb with the basic meaning of 'to cover,' though not in the sense of merely concealing. It it employed to signify the cancellation or 'writing over' of a contract (Isaiah 28:18), to appease anger (Gen. 32:20; Prov. 16:14), but 70 times, the large majority of its usage, the word is translated in the KJV as to 'make atonement' (e.g. Exod. 32:30; Ezek. 45:17). Atonement was generally made through the blood of sacrifices (Exod. 30:10). By this, sin was purged (Psalm 79:9, KJV; Isaiah 6:7) and forgiven (Psalm 78:38).

We read in Gen 2:25 that, ‘They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’ To put this in another way, they had no covering. There was no covering or atonement for sin, but that didn’t matter at the time, because there was no sin to cover. It begs the question of why the matter was even mentioned. But as soon as they fell into sin, it became of crucial importance. ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen 3:7). The word translated 'coverings here is not kaphar, but nonetheless, why did Adam and Eve, as soon as they became conscious of sin, try and cover themselves? The Bible tells us that sinful man cannot stand before a righteous God unless that sin be covered. But a man-made covering is no covering at all as far as God is concerned. As Isaiah says (64:6 ); ‘But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.’ Even as Adam and Eve put on their home-made garments, they knew in their hearts that the fig leaves were worthless to hide their sin from God, so they hid from His presence (Gen 3:8 ). The true covering for sin must come from God Himself, and it must involve the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22 ) as we shall see.

So it was God Himself who provided coverings for the guilty parties (Gen. 3:21), and that covering, since it was of animal skins, must have involved the shedding of blood. But Heb. 10:11-14 tells us that the blood of animals can never take away sins, and that it is Jesus Christ who has made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever, and Romans 3:25 informs us that by that sacrifice of propitiation God is just to forgive those sins committed by the Old Testament saints, and, in the following verse, to forgive the N.T. saints (us) as well, so that we can rejoice with Isaiah:
'I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness....'

 

[JonC]

I think we need to be a little more open about the word.

The first use of kaphar in the Bible is found in Genesis 6:14. In this verse Noah is instructed to coat (kaphar) the inside and outside of the Ark with pitch.

But it also is used when men try to appease other men (like the examples @Martin Marprelate gave), literally to "cover" their face.

Probably the main sence we take the word is from the Levitical system where kaphar refers to a ritual cleansing mechanism.

This is one instance where relying on root meanings over how the word is used may not be as helpful as the context of the passage in question. The issue would be erroneous decisions based on "coat" (the first biblical use of the word).

Coating the Ark in pitch makes sence where coating a contract or coating one of sin does not.

 

[Ascetic X]

Perhaps we might start with the Hebrew verb kapar or kaphar (Strongs 3722). This is a verb with the basic meaning of 'to cover,' though not in the sense of merely concealing. It it employed to signify the cancellation or 'writing over' of a contract (Isaiah 28:18), to appease anger (Gen. 32:20; Prov. 16:14), but 70 times, the large majority of its usage, the word is translated in the KJV as to 'make atonement' (e.g. Exod. 32:30; Ezek. 45:17). Atonement was generally made through the blood of sacrifices (Exod. 30:10). By this, sin was purged (Psalm 79:9, KJV; Isaiah 6:7) and forgiven (Psalm 78:38).

We read in Gen 2:25 that, ‘They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’ To put this in another way, they had no covering. There was no covering or atonement for sin, but that didn’t matter at the time, because there was no sin to cover. It begs the question of why the matter was even mentioned. But as soon as they fell into sin, it became of crucial importance. ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen 3:7). The word translated 'coverings here is not kaphar, but nonetheless, why did Adam and Eve, as soon as they became conscious of sin, try and cover themselves? The Bible tells us that sinful man cannot stand before a righteous God unless that sin be covered.

So it was God Himself who provided coverings for the guilty parties (Gen. 3:21), and that covering, since it was of animal skins, must have involved the shedding of blood. But Heb. 10:11-14 tells us that the blood of animals can never take away sins, and that it is Jesus Christ who has made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever, and Romans 3:25 informs us that by that sacrifice of propitiation God is just to forgive those sins committed by the Old Testament saints, and, in the following verse, to forgive the N.T. saints (us) as well, so that we can rejoice with Isaiah:
'I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness....'

Perhaps the first use of naked means “physically unclothed”, while the second use of naked means “spiritually uncovered, needing atonement”.

If in their original sinless state, they radiated the visible shining glory of the Lord, then when they sinned, that righteous glow was gone, and that was their nakedness.

The skins God made to cover them involved shedding of blood. Animal blood cannot take away sins, but it symbolizes the atonement of Christ that was coming later. Faith in that future sacrifice was credited to OT believers as justification.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps the first use of naked means “physically unclothed”, while the second use of naked means “spiritually uncovered, needing atonement”.

If in their original sinless state, they radiated the visible shining glory of the Lord, then when they sinned, that righteous glow was gone, and that was their nakedness.

The skins God made to cover them involved shedding of blood. Animal blood cannot take away sins, but it symbolizes the atonement of Christ that was coming later. Faith in that future sacrifice was credited to OT believers as justification.

Or a loss of innocence. They existed apart from a knowledge of good and evil until they didn't.

 

[Deacon]

... ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen 3:7). The word translated 'coverings here is not kaphar, but nonetheless, why did Adam and Eve, as soon as they became conscious of sin, try and cover themselves? ...

Adam and Eve's being "naked" was not in itself a sin, but exposure, once sin had occurred, was something that they immediately knew must be hidden, covered.

That particular word in Gen 3:7, "covering" (NIV, NLT, NET, LEB, GNB...) is translated as, breeches (Geneva), aprons (AV), loincloths (ESV, JPS CT), loin or waist covering (NASB), and more.

It's mention in Gen. 3:7 is not crucial to Martin's exposition. It's the purpose of the covering that holds the argument.

Rob

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I thought it might be interesting to discuss these three words in the light of discussions and non-discussions elsewhere.

Perhaps we might start with the Hebrew verb kapar or kaphar (Strongs 3722). This is a verb with the basic meaning of 'to cover,' though not in the sense of merely concealing. It it employed to signify the cancellation or 'writing over' of a contract (Isaiah 28:18), to appease anger (Gen. 32:20; Prov. 16:14), but 70 times, the large majority of its usage, the word is translated in the KJV as to 'make atonement' (e.g. Exod. 32:30; Ezek. 45:17). Atonement was generally made through the blood of sacrifices (Exod. 30:10). By this, sin was purged (Psalm 79:9, KJV; Isaiah 6:7) and forgiven (Psalm 78:38).

We read in Gen 2:25 that, ‘They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’ To put this in another way, they had no covering. There was no covering or atonement for sin, but that didn’t matter at the time, because there was no sin to cover. It begs the question of why the matter was even mentioned. But as soon as they fell into sin, it became of crucial importance. ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen 3:7). The word translated 'coverings here is not kaphar, but nonetheless, why did Adam and Eve, as soon as they became conscious of sin, try and cover themselves? The Bible tells us that sinful man cannot stand before a righteous God unless that sin be covered. But a man-made covering is no covering at all as far as God is concerned. As Isaiah says (64:6 ); ‘But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.’ Even as Adam and Eve put on their home-made garments, they knew in their hearts that the fig leaves were worthless to hide their sin from God, so they hid from His presence (Gen 3:8 ). The true covering for sin must come from God Himself, and it must involve the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22 ) as we shall see.

So it was God Himself who provided coverings for the guilty parties (Gen. 3:21), and that covering, since it was of animal skins, must have involved the shedding of blood. But Heb. 10:11-14 tells us that the blood of animals can never take away sins, and that it is Jesus Christ who has made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever, and Romans 3:25 informs us that by that sacrifice of propitiation God is just to forgive those sins committed by the Old Testament saints, and, in the following verse, to forgive the N.T. saints (us) as well, so that we can rejoice with Isaiah:
'I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness....'

Pretty much the way that I see it. May be implicit rather than explicit but the imagery and object lessons here cannot be unseen or ignored. It also fits with the rest of the narrative as you continue through the rest of Genesis as well as the other books of the law.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The first use of kaphar in the Bible is found in Genesis 6:14. In this verse Noah is instructed to coat (kaphar) the inside and outside of the Ark with pitch.

This use of kaphar in Gen. 6:14 is very interesting. I had intended to consider this a little later, but now will do.
May I make a disclaimer now? I am no expert at all in ancient Hebrew. All that follows linguistically is gleaned from commentaries, dictionaries and Young's Analytical Concordance. I am open to correction by anyone who is a Hebrew scholar.

Kaphar is not used anywhere else SFAIK in connection with pitch. The ark that bore the baby Moses was 'daubed with basphalt and pitch' ( Heb. 2:3, NKJV), but the words are quite different to those used in connection with Noah's ark.
Noah's ark must surely have had a covering of pitch, asphalt, bitumen or similar. Otherwise, however well the Gopher trees were planed, however well they were placed together, the water would slowly and steadily seeped in and the ark would eventually have become waterlogged and have foundered. But that is not the meaning of Genesis 6:14. 'Thou shalt pitch [Heb. kaphar] it within and without with pitch [Heb. kopher].' As I have said, kopher is translated by the KJV 70 times in the O.T. as 'make atonement, four times as 'make reconciliation' and four times as 'purge' or 'purge away.' Kopher appears only 13 times in the O.T.: eight times as 'ransom' and twice as 'satisfaction.' But to translate the verse 'Atone it inside and out with ransom' makes no sense.

Yet there is a word which would have made sense while keeping to the theological meanings of the two words. 'Cover it inside and out with covering.' In the flood, God's righteous anger was poured out full strength. If there were any other craft in which people had tried to save themselves, it must surely have sunk without trace or been smashed to matchwood by the waves. But when God's judgment came nigh the ark, it saw that there was a covering. Noah must surely have made an offering of one or more clean animals and smeared their blood, inside and out, upon the sides of the ark. Just as the blood of the Passover lamb was put upon the doorposts and the lintels of the Israelite dwellings, so that God would pass over them (Exod. 12:7, 13), so, I suggest,did God pass over the ark when He saw the blood.

It remains to be considered why the covering was applied inside and outside of the ark. My limited outerstanding of boatbuilding leads me to believe that this is not usually done. But I have to go now and will come back to it later.

 

[JonC]

This use of kaphar in Gen. 6:14 is very interesting. I had intended to consider this a little later, but now will do.
May I make a disclaimer now? I am no expert at all in ancient Hebrew. All that follows linguistically is gleaned from commentaries, dictionaries and Young's Analytical Concordance. I am open to correction by anyone who is a Hebrew scholar.

Kaphar is not used anywhere else SFAIK in connection with pitch. The ark that bore the baby Moses was 'daubed with basphalt and pitch' ( Heb. 2:3, NKJV), but the words are quite different to those used in connection with Noah's ark.
Noah's ark must surely have had a covering of pitch, asphalt, bitumen or similar. Otherwise, however well the Gopher trees were planed, however well they were placed together, the water would slowly and steadily seeped in and the ark would eventually have become waterlogged and have foundered. But that is not the meaning of Genesis 6:14. 'Thou shalt pitch [Heb. kaphar] it within and without with pitch [Heb. kopher].' As I have said, kopher is translated by the KJV 70 times in the O.T. as 'make atonement, four times as 'make reconciliation' and four times as 'purge' or 'purge away.' Kopher appears only 13 times in the O.T.: eight times as 'ransom' and twice as 'satisfaction.' But to translate the verse 'Atone it inside and out with ransom' makes no sense.

Yet there is a word which would have made sense while keeping to the theological meanings of the two words. 'Cover it inside and out with covering.' In the flood, God's righteous anger was poured out full strength. If there were any other craft in which people had tried to save themselves, it must surely have sunk without trace or been smashed to matchwood by the waves. But when God's judgment came nigh the ark, it saw that there was a covering. Noah must surely have made an offering of one or more clean animals and smeared their blood, inside and out, upon the sides of the ark. Just as the blood of the Passover lamb was put upon the doorposts and the lintels of the Israelite dwellings, so that God would pass over them (Exod. 12:7, 13), so, I suggest,did God pass over the ark when He saw the blood.

It remains to be considered why the covering was applied inside and outside of the ark. My limited outerstanding of boatbuilding leads me to believe that this is not usually done. But I have to go now and will come back to it later.

I would think that pitch was used inside and outside of the ark for waterproofing (perhaps animal waste from inside as this could soak into the wood). Coating the interior and exterior is a better seal from water intrusion as well. Ancient ships were coated on the outside, but they also had crews to handle water that intruded. And the Ark was big.

I only mentioned the coating to demonstrate the wide range of meanings a single word may have and why we have to rely on context.