Psalm 32 we shall discover that he who could rejoice in the blessedness of

'covered' sin, nevertheless declared, 'mine iniquity have I Not Hid' (Psa.

32:5), although, before the Psalm is finished, he says of the Lord, 'Thou art

my hiding place'.  This apparent contradiction is found in the Proverbs:

'He that covereth a transgression seeketh love' (Prov. 17:9).

'He that covereth his sins shall not prosper' (Prov. 28:13).

The difference between Proverbs 17:9 and 28:13 is the difference

between sins righteously dealt with by God, and the covering by the sinner of

his own sins.  So in Psalm 32 it was a blessed thing to have sins covered by

God, but a wrong thing to attempt to hide them from God.  All this, however,

is still within the limits of the Old Testament.  We must take the matter one

stage further, and show that the apostle Paul, knowingly and of purpose,

introduced this passage into the New Testament.  Paul quotes Psalm 32:1,2 in

Romans 4.  Now if Paul knew that the Old Testament sacrifices simply atoned

for and 'covered' sin, in contrast with the Offering of Christ, which 'put

away' sin, why did he introduce so disturbing a verse as Psalm 32:1?  Romans

4 deals with the doctrine of imputation, and Paul could easily have passed

over Psalm 32:1 and quoted verse 2, 'Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord

imputeth not iniquity'.  Yet it will soon be evident, that this verse, as it

stands, would not have served Paul's purpose.  He wrote:

'But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the

ungodly, his faith is counted (imputed) for righteousness.  Even As

David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God

imputeth righteousness without works' (Rom. 4:5,6).

To quote Psalm 32:2, saying, 'Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord

Imputeth Not iniquity', would not be sufficient proof of expiation.  Paul

therefore includes the reference to the 'covering of sin' and in that

'covering' he finds the equivalent of the positive imputation of

righteousness.  From what we have seen, it is evident that, except in Genesis

6:14, kaphar, 'to atone', is never used in its primitive sense.  It is also

evident that the idea of 'covering' sin is abhorrent neither to the doctrine

of the Old Testament nor the New.  Since the confusion of tongues, kaphar has

no other meaning than 'to propitiate'.

We have seen that the word atonement is a synonym for reconciliation

and that the Hebrew word kaphar is never translated 'cover' in any of its

forms.  We have, however, seen that, instead of rejecting the idea of

'covering' sin, both the Old Testament and the New acknowledge the

blessedness of the man whose transgressions are forgiven, or taken away, and

whose sins are 'covered'.  The truth therefore needs both statements.  Sins

are both taken away and covered.  'By one man sin entered into the world',

and the record of that fall is found in Genesis 3.  While the word kaphar is

not used in that chapter, and while the word 'cover' is not found in the

English translation, the idea is there in a double sense.  In the first, and

wrong sense, Adam and his wife sought to 'cover' their transgressions by the

aprons which they made of leaves, and by hiding from the presence of the

Lord.  We have Scripture for it that the idea of 'covering' is intended, for

Job said, 'If I covered my transgressions as Adam' (Job 31:33).  This was the

covering condemned in Proverbs 28:13.  That the word 'cover' used by Job,

aptly applies to the attempt made by Adam, the use of the word in Genesis

9:23 will show, for there, as in Genesis 3, the thought is the covering of

'nakedness'.  Just as in Proverbs the covering by the sinner of his own sin

is condemned, while the covering of sin by God is praised, so in Genesis, for