<- Previous   First   Next ->

The Syriac Versions transliterate the Greek word.
6. The Biblical evidence then, so far as it is clear, is wholly in favour of the sense of ‘covenant,’ with the necessary limitation of the sense of the word in connexion with a Divine covenant. When we pass to the consideration of the sense of
diaqhvkh in Heb. 9:15 ff. one preliminary remark offers itself. The connexion of vv. 15-18 is most close: v. 16 o{pou gavr ...: v. 18 o{qen oujdev ....

This connexion makes it most difficult to suppose that the key-word ( diaqhvkh ) is used in different senses in the course of the verses, and especially that the characteristic of a particular kind of diaqhvkh , essentially different from the prwvth diaqhvkh of vv. 15, 18, should be brought forward in
v. 16. For it is impossible to maintain that the sacrifices with which the Old

Covenant was inaugurated could be explained on the supposition that it was a ‘Testament.’ Nor does it appear that it could be called a ‘Testament’ in any sense.

It is then most reasonable to conclude that diaqhvkh has the same sense throughout, and that the sense is the otherwise universal one of ‘covenant,’ unless there are overwhelming arguments against such a view.

7. But it is said that there are such arguments: that the mention of an ‘inheritance’ suggests the thought of ‘a will,’ and that the phrases qavnaton fevresqai tou' diaqemevnou, ejpi; nekroi'", o{te zh'/ oJ diaqevmeno" require it; and further it is asked how can it be said that a covenant requires ‘death’ to give it validity?

8. In answer to these contentions it must be replied that the mention of the ‘inheritance’ in v. 15 does not appear to furnish any adequate explanation of a transition from the idea of ‘Covenant’ to that of ‘Testament.’ It is true that Christ has obtained an inheritance (1:4); and it is also true that He entered on the possession of it through death; but it cannot be said that He ‘bequeathed’ it to His people. He ‘made a disposition’ in favour of His people (Luke 22:29). By union with Him they enjoy together with Him what is His. But He does not give them anything apart from Himself. It is also of importance in this respect to notice that the thought of the bequeathal of an inheritance by Christ to His people is not supported by any other passage of Scripture (not by Luke 22:29).

Again there can be no question that in Heb. 9:15 Christ is spoken of as ‘the mediator of a new covenant’ (comp. 7:22 e[gguo" ). Now the conceptions of Christ as the ‘Mediator of a Covenant’ and as a ‘Testator,’ the ‘framer of a will,’ are essentially distinct. A Covenant is a disposition of things determined by God for man and brought about through Christ: a Testament would be the expression of Christ's own will as to what should be after His death. The thoughts are wholly different; and the idea of death is unable in itself to combine them. The Covenant might include the necessity of the Mediator's Death, but the admission of that necessity does not convert the Covenant into a Testament, or place the Mediator in a position of a Testator. He who fulfils the Covenant may indeed by the Covenant secure rights which He can communicate to others after death, but such a communication is not a testamentary disposition.

Yet further: if the writer had had in his mind the simple fact of the death of a testator it is unintelligible that he should have used language so strange as ejpi; nekroi'" and fevresqai . Nor is the use of ejpi; nekroi'" explained by the supposed choice of the words to meet the case of the Old Covenant, to which


<- Previous   First   Next ->