 |  |
What we really affirm is, that the Holy Ghost, Who inspired Moses, avoided such a usage
of set purpose. And so must we. If the very idea of "covering" sin is to be reckoned as an
intrusion into Christian doctrine, how can we account for David's pronouncement of
blessing on such a fact and its endorsement by Paul? In Psalm 32: David is not
limiting his remarks to the sacrifices of the Levitical law; he looks forward, as the
companion Psalm (Psa. 51:) reveals, to a cleansing that washes "whiter than snow", yet he
does not hesitate to speak of that greater Sacrifice as providing a covering for sin, and as
there is no other sacrifice that is conceivably greater than the Levitical sacrifices, except
the one offering of the Lord Himself, then David must be credited with ascribing to the
Sacrifice of Christ this effect of covering sin.
"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven
Whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity
And in whose spirit there is no guile" (Psa. 32: 1, 2).
The genius of Hebrew poetry places "the forgiveness of transgressions" over against
"the covering of sin", and pronounces a blessing on both. It has been maintained that the
O.T. word "atonement" means "to cover", as over against the N.T. word "take away".
Unfortunately for this theory, but blessedly for us all, the very word "forgiven" in
Psalm 32: 1 is the Hebrew Nasa, which is translated "Take (away or up)" 116 times in
the A.V. of the O.T. Here, therefore, in the estimate of David, "lifted up" or "taken
away" transgression, was the same as "covered" sin, and this is what we maintain is the
teaching of scripture. If we continue in 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 transgression, seeketh love" (Prov. 17: 9).
"He that covereth his sins shall not prosper" (Prov. 28: 13).
The difference between Prov. 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 O.T.
We must take the matter one stage further, and show that the Apostle Paul, knowingly
and of purpose, introduced this passage into the N.T. Paul quotes Psalm 32: 1, 2 in
Rom. 4: Now if Paul knew that the O.T. 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? Rom. 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