Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Bookmark and Share

« The Uniqueness of Jesus' Birth By Darrell Bock | Main | Was Timothy Timid or Fearful? (Monday with Mounce 17) by Bill Mounce »


I wrote about the Hebrew word "kipper" here:


Surely one argument for the link with "cover" is the word kapporet, with the double middle letter of the Piel, which seems to have been literally the cover or lid of the ark as well as having an atoning significance. But then I suppose the word could have been used as some kind of word play.

"… this verbal action is accomplished by applying blood to something sacred (sancta). It is applied because there has been some desecration or defilement of the sancta through impurity or sin. The blood accomplishes kipper by eliminating that defilement. Thus the blood is an agent of elimination …"

"As Hebrews indicates, the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, but it could restore the purity of the sancta and thus provide a means for the people to enter into the relationship that God had made possible through the covenant."

I'm afraid that I don't follow your argument. If "the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin", then how could such blood have ever removed the "desecration or defilement of the sancta [caused] through impurity or sin"? Didn't all such rites simply foreshadow Christ's one great sacrifice: the only one, in fact, that has ever been able to remove defilement caused by human sin? How could any animal sacrifice have ever done that? Surely any restoration was only ever done "on credit", as it were, with God "accepting" it because he was looking forward to Christ's sacrifice.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Koinoniablog.net Analytics

  • :