<- Previous   First   Next ->

the idea of a Testament does not apply (yet comp. Lact. Inst. 4.20).

9. It does not therefore appear that the sense of ‘testament’ clears away the difficulties of the passage in itself, or in relation to the context. Is it possible then, on the other hand, to give an intelligible meaning to the passage if the sense ‘covenant’ is retained throughout? To meet this question fairly it is necessary to recal what has been already said by the Apostle.

The course of thought appears to be this. In Heb. 5:15 the two notions of a ‘covenant’ and a ‘death’ have been introduced. The death, as it is first presented, is presented as a means for redemption from past obligations. But when it has once been brought forward the question arises: Had it no further meaning in this connexion? The answer is found in a reference to the rites by which covenants were solemnly ratified. A sacrifice was a constituent part of the ratification; and it must be remembered that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant included not only death but also the sprinkling of blood, already touched on in the reference to the Sacrifice of the New Covenant. The early phrases used for making a covenant shew that the idea of death actually

entered into the conception of a covenant: tyrIB] tr"K; , o{rkia tevmnein , icere

foedus.

In some way or other the victim which was slain and, in some cases at least, divided (Gen. 15:10, comp. Heb. 9:18; Jer. 34:18 f.), represented the parties to the covenant.

Probably the fundamental idea was that so far as this special arrangement was concerned they had no longer will or life. The arrangement was final and unchangeable.

In ordinary covenants the death of the persons who made the covenant was represented of necessity in symbol only, and both parties were alike liable to change. In the Covenant of the Gospel, Christ, being Himself truly man, represented humanity, as the victims represented the Jewish people at the founding of the Mosaic Covenant; and by His death He fulfilled the Covenant for men eternally, and satisfied the conditions on which forgiveness rests. He shewed that the promise of God was inviolable, and He shewed also how man could avail himself of its provisions. The redemption which was accomplished was the pledge of the fulfilment of the promise in the Covenant still to be realised.

For here fresh considerations offer themselves which underlie the argument of the passage. The Covenant to which the writer looks is, as has been seen, not one between man and man, who meet as equal parties, but between man and God. The death of the covenant-victim therefore assumes a new character. It figures not only the unchangeableness of death but also the self-surrender of death.

10. If then the view be adopted that the sense of diaqhvkh remains unchanged throughout as ‘Covenant,’ the general force of the argument will be this:

The system, the dispensation, established by Christ corresponds in the truest sense to a New Covenant, and rests upon a Covenant. A Covenant indeed requires for absolute validity the ratification by death, as is conspicuously illustrated by the fundamental covenant-sacrifice in Gen. 15 and by the Covenant with Israel.

And this condition was satisfied by Christ. He was Himself the


<- Previous   First   Next ->