Skip to main content

Redemption As Covering

The main theme of Scripture is redemption and the restoration of covenant with God that it makes possible.  Accordingly, there are many different earthly pictures of redemption that God uses to communicate to us this spiritual reality.  One of the most beautiful metaphors for redemption is the pervasive concept of covering.  Covering is also one the most ancient pictures of redemption, dating back all the way to our first parents.  In Genesis 3 we read the story known as The Fall.  Adam and Eve reject the command of God and partake of the forbidden fruit, leading to a new awareness of their nakedness.  After rebuking them for their crime, God covers them with clothing made from animal skins.  He covers their nakedness.  He hides their shame.

The theme continues in Exodus 25 where we read of the construction of the Ark of the Covenant.  Verse 17 records God's instruction to build a mercy seat.  Now, mercy seat is an unusual translation for an unusual word.  The term itself refers to covering over sin and the piece being built literally acted as the cover for the ark.  This mercy seat was where God's presence rested in the Tabernacle/Temple in visible form and it was here that Atonement was made.  Leviticus 16 tells us about the annual command for the High Priest to enter the Most Holy Place in order to make atonement for the sins of the whole nation. How was this accomplished?  By sprinkling the blood of the sacrificial animals upon the mercy seat.

We pick up this theme in Psalm 32 where David cries out, "Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered."  The Hebrew word translated "cover" literally refers to putting on clothing.  By extension it refers to concealing something, especially shame or guilt.  David is declaring the happy state of the man whose sin has been concealed from the eyes of God, which Psalm 103:12 tells us is something God Himself accomplishes.

When we jump to the New Testament, we find, predictably, that our theme is present there as well.  In Matthew 22 we read the Parable of the Wedding Feast.  This is a parable about how Christ saves the unloved rabble of the world, but it ends on a rather shocking note.  One of the guests, being found without the wedding garments that had been given to each of the attendees, is cast into utter darkness. These clean, white garments picture the righteousness of Christ that covers our filth.

Perhaps the most powerful illustration is in the New Testament authors' use of the word "propitiation."  Paul uses it in Romans 3:25, the author of Hebrews uses it in Hebrews 2:17, and John uses it twice in his first epistle (2:2 and 4:10).  The term translated "propitiation" in all of these passages is a form of the Greek word used in the Septuagint to translate "mercy seat."  Jesus is our mercy seat.  He is the place where we meet God.  He is the reason that our sins can be covered.  You see, God cannot simply wink at sin due to the holiness of His nature.  He cannot simply cover sin and ignore it, which is why the Israelites were given a complex set of ceremonies that illustrated the need for a substitutionary atonement.  Jesus, by taking our sin and giving us His righteousness, is the key to God covering our sins once and for all--the great Antitype to the Day of Atonement. As Romans 3:26 puts it, this enables God to be both just and the justifier of sinners. A few verses later Paul quotes Psalm 32:1.

So when you go before God in prayer to confess your sins, remember that He has covered them from view.  They are hidden beyond reclamation--as far as the east is from the west.  If you are united to Jesus Christ though faith, you have been clothed with the robes of righteousness and are a child of God.  Your sins are covered--how blessed you are!



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...