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 Gen. 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 O.T.

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. Yet, we use the word "mere" in a depreciatory 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using the word in its Dictionary and Etymological sense, whereas, to-day that is obsolete,

its meaning, by usage, being the very reverse. The Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning

of "mere" as "pure, unmixed, undiluted", and "absolute, entire, sheer, perfect", and only

in the last definition does it give "barely" or "only". Shakespeare uses the word in the

primitive sense when he makes the herald announce that, upon the arrival of the tidings of

"the mere perdition of the Turkish fleet", bonfires, sports and revels should mark the

welcome news. To-day the news of "the mere" perdition of an enemy fleet would lead to

no such confidence. Thus it will be seen that the attempt to compel the word kaphar

never to grow as other words grow; to confine its meaning to its primitive, etymological

root, instead of allowing it the expansion of its usage and fruit, is just as unscientific and

bad as to compel every modern Englishman to use the word "mere" as did the Dutchman,

whose acquaintance with the language was after all at second-hand. In the next place, we

must be aware of the fact that there is no aversion in the O.T. or N.T. Scriptures to using,

with good intent, the expression "to cover sin". The phrase does occur, and kaphar is

avoided, an entirely different word, from an entirely different root, being used.  In

Lev. 17: 11 the words "to make atonement" occur twice, and twice they are the

rendering of the Hebrew kaphar. Now if "covering" be actually the meaning of this

word, what an opportunity was missed in the thirteenth verse of the same chapter, to

demonstrate the fact once and for ever.

Moses could have so interlinked this "covering" with the "atonement" of verse 11, as

to establish, beyond dispute, the idea that "atonement" means a mere covering--yet he

did not do so. We have said "Moses" did not do this; we have said "What an opportunity

was lost", but the reader will readily understand that we speak after the manner of men.