Testament Christ 'put it away'.  First, let us be factual.  Putting aside all

theories let us seek an answer to the question, is there a single example in

the whole of the Old Testament where kaphar is translated 'cover'?  For it is

maintained that this is the primary significance of the word, and that this

significance must be read into every subsequent use of the term in the

Levitical law.  The answer is, that there is not a single passage where the

translation 'to cover' is found, and to take the matter further, neither

kaphar the verb, kopher the noun, or the derived words, kippurim or

kapporeth, are ever translated by the word 'cover'.  This of itself should

give us pause, lest a hasty conclusion rob us of valuable truth.

But we will take the matter still further by setting

out every Greek word that has been employed in the Septuagint to translate

these same Hebrew words and we shall find that the combined results of the

inquiry are overwhelming in their weight.  We must not, however, anticipate,

but proceed to proof.  First, let us face a possible, though improbable

objection that the word kaphar does not happen to be translated 'cover'

simply because no Hebrew writer ever needed to use such an expression, but

that he would have so used kaphar had he needed the idea of covering.  Yet,

somehow, throughout the whole range of the Old Testament Scriptures, the idea

of 'covering' anything never occurs.  Every reader will know that this

hypothetical statement is entirely false.  So varied is the idea of

'covering' in the Old Testament that in the A.V. no less than twenty -three

different words, beside their variants and derivations, are translated

'cover'!  It may nevertheless be objected, that the idea of covering dishes,

or heads, or nakedness, or by outstretched wings, or by ashes, or by robes or

with gold, etc., would not necessitate the use of kaphar; that only such an

idea as 'covering sin' would meet the case.  This is untrue.  The first

occurrence of kaphar and kopher mean nothing else than coating planks of wood

with pitch (Gen. 6:14), and if the principle be true that this first

occurrence in Genesis settles the sense in all other occurrences, we should

naturally assume that the second and only other occurrence of kaphar in this

same book of Genesis (and consequently before the giving of the law), would

be employed in strict accord with this initial meaning.

Let us consider what such a principle of interpretation would lead to.

Could we translate Genesis 32:20 the only other occurrence of kaphar in the

book -- by, 'I will cover his face', in the same sense in which it was used

where covering with pitch was concerned?  Surely it is patent to all that

between the days of Noah, when kaphar was used in its primitive meaning, and

the days of Jacob, the word had dropped its initial idea of a mere 'covering'

and taken upon itself the new meaning, 'to appease', as with a gift.  At any

rate to this modified meaning the whole of the subsequent books of the Old

Testament canon conform.  The slightest acquaintance with the behaviour of

language and the changes that come in the course of time, should have

prevented so crude an idea as that a word must always rigidly retain its

primary meaning.  Many instances of this change in language will occur to

every reader.  One that has come before our notice at the time of writing

will illustrate our meaning.  A Dutch correspondent referred to Paul as the

one who gave us 'the mere doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ'.  For the

moment, this puzzled us, for it was evident from the context that our

correspondent intended to convey the idea, that of all the writers in the

Bible, Paul was the one who gave us the most complete statement of this

doctrine.  We use the word 'mere' in a deprecatory sense, and say 'a mere

trifle' or a 'mere covering'.  Yet the fact is that the Dutch correspondent

was using the word in its dictionary and etymological sense, whereas, today

that is obsolete; its meaning, by usage, being the very reverse.