Note VIII.

ON THE SCRIPTURAL USE OF THE TERMS COVENANT AND TESTAMENT.

The scriptural term διαθήκη may signify either a covenant or a testament. In the authorized English version, and in some others, both these senses are occasionally adopted; but in the foregoing treatise the former only. It is the object of the following remarks to assign the grounds of this preference, and to show that in an accurate translation of the Bible the latter term should never be employed, except perhaps in the technical appellations,— Old Testament, and New Testament, — which at the present period it might be difficult as well as inconvenient to alter.

The terra διαθήκη occurs in thirty-three places of the New Testament, and in three more is evidently implied. In seventeen of these instances the authorized version renders it — Covenant¹ — in fourteen — Testament, and in the remaining five the translators have candidly intimated their doubts, by inserting one of these words in the text, and the other in the margin. In order to obtain a clear view of the question, and to aid the judgment in drawing a correct conclusion, the nineteen passages of the authorized version wherein the word Testament occurs wall first be collated with the version now proposed; and, as the real import of terms is often overlooked when long use has rendered them familiar, the word Testament will on this

To the rendering of διαθήκη by Covenant rather than Testament, in the seventeen passages wherein the former terra has been adopted by the authorized version, no objection will, it is presumed, be made; and, in the greater part of the nineteen passages above quoted, the superiority of the same rendering will probably be admitted by most readers on a simple comparison, with the exception perhaps of Nos. 7, 13, and 14, wherein the other rendering may seem to be admissible at least, if not preferable; and which will therefore be reserved for a separate consideration. In the mean while some general arguments will be adduced, to show that in Scripture the word διαθήκη always signifies a covenant, and never a testament or will.

This conclusion is, in the first place, deducible from the nature of the subject. A covenant is a mutual engagement between parties respecting their subsequent relation and conduct towards each other. A testament is the declaration of a person's will respecting the disposal of his property after his death. According to these commonly received definitions, a divine covenant is a perfectly conceivable transaction; but a divine testament is an absurdity. All the circumstances of a will are characteristic of the weakness, selfishness, and mortality of inferior beings, but are utterly incompatible with the attributes of him — "from whom, and through whom, and for whom are all things, . . . . .  the blessed and only potentate,

the king of kings, and lord of lords, who alone possesseth immortality, dwelling in light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen nor can see, to whom be honour and eternal dominion. Amen."² — A will, notwithstanding its appellation, is an act which is seldom performed willingly. A man gives directions respecting the disposal of his property after his death, merely because death compels him to part with it; but, as long as he lives he has the right, and usually also the inclination to retain it in possession; on which account his will cannot be lawfully executed before his decease, nor altered after it. The Deity, on the contrary, can neither die, nor part with property, nor remove from one world to another. As the absolute lord and proprietor of all things, he is never impoverished by his gifts, which belong to him as much after they are granted as before, and which he is always at liberty to bestow or withdraw at his pleasure.

Should it be alleged that Christ is the testator here intended, it must be replied that such a view is at variance with the Scripture, which always represents him as the mediator, not as the principal; and his followers as — "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." — The general notion is moreover equally unsuitable in this case as in the former one; for, in the immediate prospect of crucifixion, Christ assured his disciples that he would not leave them in the forlorn condition of orphans,³ but would speedily return to them as their eternal protector and benefactor; a promise which he performed by rising from the dead the third day, conversing with them during forty days on earth, and granting them, after his ascension to heaven, the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. From that period, instead of losing or transferring any property by his death, — "God hath constituted his Son heir of all things;... and hath seated him at his own right hand in the heavenly [places,] far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name [that is] named, not only in this world, but in that also [which is] to come; hath put all things in subjection under his feet, and hath appointed him to be [the] supreme head of the church, which is his body, the completion of him who completeth all in all."⁴ — If there is any passage in the New Testament which bears the semblance of a bequest made by Christ to his disciples, it is Luke, chap. 22, v. 29; — "Κάγὼ διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν, καθὼς διέθετό μοι ὁ πατήρ μου, βασιλείαν·" — I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." — Regarding the term abstractedly, without reference to the context, this passage might certainly be lendered,—"I bequeath unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath bequeathed unto me." — But the authors of the English Vulgate doubtless perceived that such a translation is inadmissible, both as regards the Father, to whom such an act is utterly inapplicable, and as regards the Son, to whom the very next verse, — "that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel," — as well as the corresponding passages in Matt, chap. 19, v. 27-30; Rev. chap. 3, v. 20, 21; and chap. 21, v. 6, 7, &c., plainly shows that it was never intended to be applied; since a bequest is enjoyed, not in conjunction with the testator, but in succession to him.

Secondly, this conclusion is deducible from the fact, that the word διαθήκη is chiefly used by the sacred writers when addressing their Hebrew fellow-countrymen, who, although familiar with covenants, knew nothing of testaments; because amongst their nation the transmission of property after death was determined by law, and not by the will of the previous possessor. On this ground alone it might reasonably be inferred that, under such circumstances, the word διαθήκη would uniformly be employed in the sense of covenant, and never in that of testament. The frequent occurrence in Scripture of the words heir, and inheritance, in connexion with the death of Christ, may not unnaturally have suggested the notion that his followers obtain a heavenly inheritance, as a legacy bequeathed to them by his will; but this error, like some others which disfigure biblical interpretation, has chiefly arisen from inattention to Hebrew customs and idioms, and from neglecting to distinguish things which, although they may have a superficial resemblance, are essentially different. With the exception of some of the Asamonean and Herodian princes, and a few other opulent persons who adopted Gentile manners, Israelites when in their own land, and under the Mosaic dispensation, did not dispose of their property by will. During their life-time they gave to their younger children such portions as they thought fit, but at their death the bulk of their estate descended, as a matter of course, to their legal heir. Thus, at the very commencement of their history, it is stated that — "Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac; but unto the sons of his concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts whilst he yet lived, and sent them away from Isaac his son eastward, unto the east country." — So, in the parable of the prodigal, the younger son demanded from his father a portion of the family property, and, having received it, withdrew to a distant land; but to the elder son the father said, when endeavouring to appease his resentment, — "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine." — Hence, among the people of Israel, the term corresponding to inheritance was applicable to property lawfully acquired by whatever tenure, but was perhaps most frequently applied to that which children derived, either by gift or by succession, from their father. That by the death of Christ those who believe on his name become the adopted children of God, and obtain a title and qualification to a heavenly inheritance, is undoubtedly true, but it is not the whole truth; and it is owing to this partial and imperfect view of the doctrine, aided by a misinterpretation of some of the terms employed, that the notion of a will has been introduced. A little reflection, however, is sufficient to prove its incorrectness; since it is evident that these unspeakable blessings are procured by the death of Christ, not as a testator, who in the ordinary course of mortality is compelled to resign a property, to which other parties may succeed by a natural claim as soon as the former possessor is deceased, but by his death as an atoning victim, through the infinite value and efficacy of which, penitent sinners, who cordially embrace the offers of divine mercy proclaimed in the gospel, are redeemed from the bondage of sin, and the malediction of the law, and admitted into a covenant of reconciliation and friendship with God, ratified not merely by the death, but also by the life's blood of the Redeemer.⁵

Thirdly, the same conclusion is suggested by the context and connexion of all the passages in which the term διαθήκη is found; for they all agree with the notion of a covenant, and are opposed to that of a testament. The inference here drawn is much facilitated, in consequence of the Scripture describing under this name two dispensations, the Mosaic and the Christian, which are evidently of the same general nature, and concerning one of which no doubt can be entertained. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament the word διαθήκη frequently occurs; and, like the corresponding Hebrew term בוית, uniformly signifies a covenant, and never a testament, an object to which there is not in the whole of this portion of the sacred volume the slightest allusion. In those passages of the New Testament, more especially Heb. chap. 8 and 9, where the two dispensations are minutely compared, and called by the same name διαθήκη, it is manifest that, if the meaning of this term is covenant in the former case, it must be equally so in the latter. Thus in Galat. chap. 4, v. 24, the apostle Paul, speaking of Abraham's wives Hagar and Sarah, remarks, — "Which things are allegorical, for these [women] represent [δύο διαθῆκαι,] TWO COVENANTS."— In Rom. chap. 9, v. 4, he observes of the Jews, — "Who are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, and the glory, and [αἱ διαθῆκαι,] THE COVENANTS, and the giving of the law, and the [appointed] worship, and the promises," &c.; — and in Ephes. chap. 2, v. 11, 12, he says to Christian Gentiles, — "Remember that ye who were once Gentiles in flesh, and called uncircumcision by those who derive their name from the circumcision made by hands in the flesh, were at that time without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and [ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας,] Strangers to THE COVENANTS of promise, without hope, and without God in the world." — The appendages also which are associated by the sacred writers with each of these dispensations, such as temple, — ark, — mediator, — surety, — victim, — atoning blood, — discharge of sins, — reconciliation, — and redemption, — are all appropriate to the notion of a covenant, but inapplicable to that of a testament or will. The same may be said of the various relative or comparative terms so often applied to them in Scripture; for, as it is notorious that there never was any first, — former, — old, — inferior, — or temporary divine will, there cannot have been any second, — latter,— new, — better, or everlasting one; whereas, if the word COVENANT is substituted, all these appellations are suitable and true. Hence, whenever the word διαθήκη is accompanied with any such terms or allusions, it must undoubtedly signify a covenant, not a testament; and by this simple rule, the import of almost all the passages above quoted may easily be determined.

To avoid prolixity, the majority of these passages will therefore be left without further comment to the reader's investigation; and the following remarks will comprehend three of them only, to which the rule does not so strictly apply, and which are also the only ones wherein the notion of a will, abstractedly considered, seems capable of being seriously entertained. These passages, which in the preceding tabular statement are numbered 7, 13, and 14, will for the sake of perspicuity be here reproduced, both in the authorized, and in a modified version.

In this instance it cannot be difficult to decide which of the two senses is the true one, since one of them only agrees with the context, and with the general subject. Throughout the whole of this and the following chapter the apostle is speaking of the two covenants, — δύο διαθῆκαι, — which God successively made with Abraham. On that and similar grounds he maintains that, notwithstanding the aversion of the Israelitish people to Christianity, there is no opposition between the law and the gospel; and that, supposing even it were otherwise, the Christian covenant, which God originally established with Abraham and his spiritual seed, that is with Christ, could not be superseded by the Mosaic covenant, which was not introduced until four hundred and thirty years afterwards. The apostle enforces his argument by remarking that there are two parties to a covenant; — that, when it is once confirmed, neither party can alter it without the consent of the other; — and that, if such a rule is binding in a human covenant, it must, if possible, be still more so in one that is divine. This reasoning is apposite and conclusive; but, except in reference to the single point of inheritance, common to both subjects, and which has been already explained, any allusion to a testament or will in this connexion would have been incongruous and unsuitable; for, to say that a will cannot be altered after the death of the testator, would afford no proof that God cannot alter a covenant into which he has entered. In all transactions of this kind those who embrace the offer made to them are, it is true, entitled to an inheritance, either in heaven, or on earth; but this is secured to them by a covenant, not by a testament; a mode of proceeding which, as previously observed, cannot be ascribed to the Deity without absurdity.

These verses present the case which, separately considered, is of all others the most favourable to the notion of a Will, were that notion in any case admissible; but that it is utterly untenable, will appear from its total discrepancy with the phraseology, the argument, and the entire object of these passages; whilst that of a Covenant is in perfect accordance with each.

Before proceeding with this inquiry, it may be useful to recollect that amongst the more important ancient covenants were treaties of peace and alliance, adopted by parties previously hostile; who, having at length agreed on terms of reconciliation, pledged themselves by oaths and sacrifices to their faithful observance. On these occasions the victims were divided longitudinally into corresponding halves, between which the contracting parties solemnly passed in succession, thereby literally entering into a covenant, and imprecating on themselves, in the event of breaking their engagements, a similar fate. Hence, the Hebrew name for a covenant, and perhaps also the Greek word διαθήκη, are derived from roots signifying to sever or divide; and hence probably the ancient punishment of cutting or sawing asunder, to which there seems to be some allusion in a few passages of the New Testament, was originally contrived to mark the peculiar atrocity of treachery, or the violation of covenants.⁶ A memorable example of a covenant of this kind occurs in Jerem. chap. 34, v. 6-22, and may be thus described. — At the commencement of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, during the reign of Zedekiah, many of the higher and more opulent classes among the Jews who, in opposition to the law of Moses, had reduced their countrymen and countrywomen to domestic slavery, set them at liberty, and confirmed this act of justice by a solemn covenant, celebrated in the manner above mentioned. This procedure was however the result, not of principle, but of fear; and hence, on the subsequent retirement of the Babylonish army from the city, they basely broke their covenant, and reduced to their former slavery the persons whom they had recently emancipated. Such conduct was of course highly offensive to God, who threatened them in consequence through the prophet Jeremiah with the severest judgments, and in the course of these denunciations used the following remarkable expressions, — chap. 34, v. 18, — "I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, who have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof, 19. the princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, who passed between the parts of the calf, 20. I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life: and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth," &c.

Such having been the established practice in ancient times and eastern countries, it pleased God in making his primitive covenant with Abraham to adopt similar observances. The condescension of God, both in providing a method of reconciliation between himself and sinful men, and in pressing it on their acceptance, is indeed almost too great to be believed; and hence a second act of condescension became necessary, especially before the birth of Christ, in order to prove the reality and certainty of the first. The fact is thus noticed by the apostle Paul. — "When God made a promise to Abraham, since there was none greater by whom he could swear, he swore by himself, saying — 'I will assuredly bless thee and multiply thee;'— and accordingly, after patiently waiting, [Abraham] obtained the promised [blessing.] For men swear by a superior, and an oath furnishes them with a confirmation beyond all dispute. On which account God, being desirous to prove more fully to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, had recourse to an oath, that by means of two unchangeable acts, wherein [it was] impossible that God should deal falsely, we, who have fled [for refuge] to lay hold of the hope set before [us,] might have a strong consolation." — Nor was this all; for the patriarch having by God's direction slain and divided victims in the usual manner, the Shechinah, or emblem of the divine presence, actually went, like a human party, between the severed halves. — "It came to pass that when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold! a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram." — Thus by every conceivable token, both in word and in deed, the gracious engagement of God with repenting sinners is throughout Scripture represented as a covenant of reconciliation; and the short description which he himself gives of them is, — "Those who have made a covenant with me by sacrifice."⁷

Returning to the two passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews which are now under consideration, it will be recollected that in this portion of Scripture the apostle Paul is addressing Israelitish Christians, more especially perhaps those of Palestine, with a view to confirm them in the faith and practice of the gospel, and probably also to produce through them a favourable impression on the minds of their unbelieving countrymen. For this purpose, he draws a full and minute comparison between the two covenants, the Mosaic and the Christian; shows that the Mosaic covenant, and the whole ceremonial law annexed to it, were merely typical and temporary institutions, preparatory to the great and spiritual realities of Christianity; and intimates that, as the substance was now come, the shadow would speedily vanish away. This discussion is chiefly pursued in the long section which extends from the eighth chapter to the middle of the tenth, and includes the two verses in question, together with the following context: — "Christ having arrived [as] high-priest of the blessings to come, by the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this institution, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, entered once for all into the most holy place, having achieved an everlasting redemption. For, if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on those who are unclean, sanctify to the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself [as a] spotless [sacrifice] to God, purify your consciences from dead works, to worship the living God? And for this end he is [the] mediator of [the] new covenant; that, [in consequence of] a death having taken place as a ransom for the transgressions [committed] under the first covenant, those who are called might attain the promised [gift] of the eternal inheritance. For, where [there is] a covenant, [the] death of the covenant- victim [must] necessarily take place; for a covenant [is] ratified over dead [victims,] not having any force while the victim remains alive. On which account, neither was the first [covenant] solemnized without blood; for, when every commandment of the law had been recited to all the people by Moses, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying — 'This [is] the blood of the covenant which God hath appointed for you.' — And in like manner he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle, and all the implements of the sacred service; and [indeed,] according to the law, almost all things are purified by blood, and without effusion of blood there is no discharge [of sins."⁸ — The whole tenour of this important passage proves that the term διαθήκη is therein used in the same sense as in all the passages previously cited. Christ is here described, not as the testator of a will, but as the mediator, the surety, the high-priest, and the victim of a covenant. That the transaction was a covenant, not a testament, is determined by its collation with the Mosaic covenant, concerning which there cannot be any dispute. For the ratification of such a covenant, the apostle observes that the violent death of a suitable victim, attended with the effusion of its life's blood, was indispensable; that until these conditions were fulfilled the covenant was not valid; and that the first covenant was ratified by the blood of animals, but the new covenant by that of Christ. These circumstances have no relation or analogy to those of a will, nor are they explained by stating that a will is not in force until after the death of the testator. If any one doubts this, let him consider which of the following answers to the questions implied in the foregoing passage is the most rational and satisfactory.

QUERIES. — Why did Christ become the mediator of the new covenant, and make atonement for the sins of mankind by the effusion of his blood? — and why was the Mosaic covenant solemnized by shedding the blood of calves and goats?

ANSWER I. — Because a will is not in force until after the death of the testator.

ANSWER II. — Because a covenant of reconciliation is not ratified without the sacrifice of the appointed victim, or, in other words, without a suitable atonement.

The natural conclusion is, that an inspired writer could not have intended to construct a solid argument by the combination of such heterogeneous materials, and that the term διαθήκη, which in every other part of Scripture signifies a covenant, cannot on this single occasion, without warning, and against reason, have been employed in a sense so different and incongruous as that of a will.

Such being the case, it is not a little surprising that some eminent theologians of the present day either hesitate to admit this conclusion, or even adopt the opposite one. The latter course is taken by Dr. Moses Stuart, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, but with a feebleness which forms a striking contrast to the general merit of his excellent work, and with concessions which greatly detract from the weight of his authority on this point. For, in the first place, although he zealously advocates the notion of a testament, and although with a view to consistency the authorized version has actually inserted the word in several places, he has never introduced it in his own translation except in these two solitary verses; and admits that — "this mode of illustration or comparison depends entirely on the sense of the Greek word διαθήκη and is not at all supported by any meaning of the Hebrew, בוית," — the corresponding term in the Old Testament.⁹ But the very language which he employs in support of this opinion affords a convincing proof of its unsoundness; for the divine transaction denoted by either of these terms, whether Hebrew or Greek, is in Scripture uniformly represented as a sacred reality; and, as in this case the notion of a will or testament could at best be nothing more than — "a mode of illustration or comparison," — and that a very inapposite one, it cannot be the object intended. In commenting on the text, — "Ὅπου γὰρ ἓιαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου," — Heb. chap. 9, v. 16, Dr. Stuart in like manner makes the following concession. — "Φέρεσθαι, in the sense of intervening, happening, taking place, (which must necessarily be attached to it here,) has no exact parallel, that I can find, either in classic or sacred usage. It is as to such a meaning a true ἅπαξ λεγόμενον," — a singular expression. Were this statement strictly correct, it would strengthen the argument for interpreting the word διαθέμενος in the peculiar sense, wherein the context shows that it must here have been employed. But, although the terms — "intervening, happening, or taking place," — may tolerably well represent the general meaning of the verb φέρομαι, they do not express its full meaning, the character of which is not passive, but forcible, and in this particular case might very properly be rendered — "to be brought about or induced," — in other words, — "to be inflicted;" — a meaning which perfectly agrees with the death of a victim, but not at all with that of a testator. Again, in the following verse 17, — "Διαθὴκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία," &c., — the expression, ἐπὶ νεκροῖς, which has been translated — "over dead victims," — and literally means — "over dead bodies," — is inapplicable to a deceased testator, whose will is certainly not confirmed over his corpse, but fully accords with the victims, often numerous, over whose dead and dissevered bodies a covenant of reconciliation was anciently ratified. The version of this passage, proposed after much deliberation by Dr. Stuart, and which is probably the best which could be contrived in favour of the opinion which he endeavours to support, — "because a testament is valid in respect to those only who are dead," — affords a further proof that the opinion is untenable; since, if such were the fact, a will could never be executed.¹⁰

Dr. Pye Smith, in his admirable work on the Priesthood of Christ, evidently inclines to the opposite opinion; but, with his usual modesty and candour, mentions two difficulties with which he and others conceive it to be pressed, namely, — "the necessity of making ὁ διαθέμενος and νεκροὶ to signify the animal sacrifices by which the most solemn covenants in early times were ratified; whereas the phrase διαθέσθαι διαθήκην is common in the Septuagint, and always refers to the act of the person who constitutes the covenant, and νεκροὶ, or νεκρὰ, is never applied to the dead bodies of any but mankind." — He adds, — "Perhaps we must humbly say that this passage is among 'the things hard to be understood' of the apostle Paul's writings, and that the satisfactory elucidation of it is not yet attained."¹¹ — With much deference to so respected an authority, it may be replied that neither of these remarks is strictly accurate; for, in the Septuagint version, the phrase διαθέσθαι διαθήκην or its equivalents is often applied to either or both of the parties engaging in a covenant, as well as to the mediator or agent by whom it is administered. Of its application to the principal party, and more especially to the Deity, the instances are too numerous and familiar to require quotation. In the following cases the term is applied to both parties. Abraham and Abimelech entered into a covenant at Beersheba; — "and both of them made a covenant; καὶ διέθεντο ἀμφότεροι διαθήκην·" — Jacob and Laban, at the proposal of the latter, entered into a covenant on Mount Gilead; — "Now therefore come thou, let us make a covenant I and thou; Νῦν οὖν δεῦρο, διαθώμεθα διαθήκην ἐγὼ καὶ σὺ·" — David and Jonathan, in the wilderness of Ziph; — "And they two made a covenant before the Lord; Καὶ διέθεντο ἀμφότεροι διαθήκην ἐνώπιον Κυρίου·" — and Solomon and Hiram, through the medium of ambassadors; — "And they two made a league together; Καὶ διέθεντο διαθήκην ιἰνα μέσον ἑαυτῶν."¹² — In some in stances the expression is employed in reference to parties making a covenant with God. Thus Hezekiah, in an address to the priests and Levites at the commencement of his reign, intimated,— '' Now [it is] in my heart to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel; Ἐπὶ τούτοις, νῦν ἔστιν ἐπὶ καρδίας διαθέσθαι διαθήκην μου, διαθήκην Κυρίου, Θεοῦ Ἰσραὴλ" — Josiah, on mounting the throne, followed the example of his pious ancestor; — "And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord; Καὶ ἔστη ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τὸν στύλον, καὶ διέθετο διαθήκην ἐνώπιον Κυρίου·" — and, after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, Shechaniah, in an address to Ezra, recommended a similar proceeding to those among them who had married foreign wives; — "Now, therefore, let us make a covenant with our God, &c.; Καὶ νῦν διαθώμεθα διαθήκην τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν."¹³

There are other cases again, and more to the present purpose, where the term is applied to those who act as mediators, or ministers, in bringing other parties into a covenant. Thus, in the national covenant established between God and the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, and afterwards renewed on the plains of Moab, Moses was the appointed mediator. This circumstance, to which allusion is made in Galat. chap. 3, v. 19, 20, is described on the first occasion in the book of Exodus, and on the second, in the following manner, in that of Deuteronomy; — "These [are] the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb . . . . . . Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do . . . . . . Neither with you only do I make this covenant, and this oath; Καὶ οὐχ ὑμῖν μόνοις ἐγὼ διατίθεμαι τὴν διαθήκην ταύτην, καὶ τὴν ἀρὰν ταύτην·" — Joshua, a little before his death, imitated the conduct of his illustrious predecessor, and persuaded the people of Israel to renew their covenant with God. — "So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day; Και ιε ετο Ιησους διαθήκην ιιρος τον λαον εν τῃ ημερᾳ ἐκείνῃ" — Jehoiada the high-priest performed a similar act after the deposition of the idolatrous Athaliah, and the restoration of true religion under Joash, the rightful sovereign.— "And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord, and the king, and the people, that they should be the Lord's people; Καὶ διέθετο ’Ῑωαδαέ διαθήκην ἀνα μέσον Κυρίου, καὶ ἀνα μέσον τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ ἀνα μέσον τοῦ λαοῦ, τοῦ εἶναι εἷς λαὸν τῷ Κυρίῳ·" — and lastly, during the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, Zedekiah the king brought the people, as above related, into a solemn covenant with God, to emancipate their Hebrew slaves.¹⁴ It hence appears that the scriptural use of the phrase διαθέσθαι διαθήκην is more extensive than was supposed by Dr. Smith; a fact which may be still further illustrated by the text already cited; namely. Psalm 50, v. 5. "Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice; τοὺς διατιθεμένους τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ θυσίαις:" — literally, — "over slaughtered victims;" — an expression exactly corresponding to that in Heb. chap. 9, v. 17. "A covenant [is] ratified over dead [victims;] διαθήκη ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία"— Dr. Smith's objection to such an application of the term νεκροῖς, on the ground that it is always restricted to the dead bodies of mankind, is in like manner obviated by three opposite examples; to which several others might doubtless be added. Two of these are derived from Æsop's Fables; — "Ὅ αἴλουρος . . . . προσεποιεῖτο αὑτον ΝΕΚΡΟΝ εἶναι' The cat. . . . pretended to be dead;" — "ἐπειδὴ εἶδε τὴν χελιδόνα ΝΕΚΡΑΝ ἐρημουμένην· when he saw the swallow left dead;" — and the third from the Septuagint translation of the book of Ecclesiastes; — "Ὁ κύων ὁ ζῶν, αὐτὸς ἀγαθὸς ὑπὲρ τὸν λέοντα τὸν ΝΕΚΡΟΝ· A living dog is better than a dead lion."¹⁵

Supposing the other difficulties connected with the interpretation of this passage to have been now removed, there remains only that of explaining the exact signification of the term ὁ διαθέμενος, and of accounting for its being so applied. But, if διαθήκη here means a covenant of reconciliation, ὁ διαθέμενος cannot mean the testator; for, as has been well observed by the Rev. Archibald M'Lean, in his judicious commentary on this epistle, the expressions mediator of a testament, and testator of a covenant, are alike unintelligible.¹⁶ It must therefore mean the covenant victim; since, of all the parties concerned in such a transaction, the victim is the only one whose death is necessary for the purpose of ratification, and by the effusion of whose blood atonement is made for the offences which occasioned the previous hostility. This usage of the term is perhaps somewhat uncommon; but it should be remembered that the sacred writers of the New Testament do not confine themselves to classical Greek, that the subject is one of great complexity, and of supreme importance, that it was difficult to find Greek idioms perfectly adapted to the case, and that in addressing Hebrew Christians familiar with the topics under discussion, and accustomed to the Hellenistic dialect, the apostle might very naturally have been induced to employ an expression which, although a little irregular, would probably convey to their minds more precisely than any other, the object which he had in view. This object was to show that, whereas under the Mosaic covenant the blood of inferior victims offered on the altar accomplished a figurative and ceremonial atonement, the blood of Christ, who was at once the mediator, surety, high-priest, and victim of the new covenant, accomplished a real one, whereby all who cordially embrace it are reconciled to God, and entitled as his adopted children to an eternal inheritance. Nor was this proceeding arbitrary, or unreasonable, but founded on the intrinsic nature of the case, and analogous to human usages on similar occasions. Except through a suitable mediator, God could not, consistently with the perfection and dignity of his character, have made overtures of friendship to depraved and sinful men; — unless security had been given for the full satisfaction of divine justice, the negotiation could not have proceeded; — unless the pledge so given had been thoroughly redeemed by the death of Christ as an atoning victim, it could not have been completed; — and it is obvious that he who thus consecrates and presents acceptable worshippers to God, is a high-priest. As all these offices are virtually united in that of a reconciler of hostile parties through the medium of a sacrificial covenant, the term διαθεμένος, which in this sense is generally applicable to every covenant-victim, is peculiarly applicable to Christ. The texts recently quoted from the Septuagint show that the corresponding verb is occasionally there used in reference to the office of a mediator; and both the verb and its participles are often employed by the ancient Greek authors in the sense of composing animosities, and reconciling parties who have been at variance. Among the meanings assigned to the middle verb διατίθεμαι in Stephens's Thesaurus, are — componere, ad concordiam reducere, concorditer constituerc, placare; — among those mentioned in Donnegan's Lexicon,— to conciliate, to reconcile, to accommodate a difference; — and, by the evidence thus supplied, the use of this term by the apostle Paul in the sense here assigned may therefore be regarded as sufficiently explained. At all events, it is far better to admit that in such a use of the term the apostle committed a slight irregularity, if it really is one, than to consign the whole of a most important passage to obscurity, or absurdity.

Nor is this view of the passage now proposed for the first time, having long since been adopted by several eminent authors, and amongst others by Mr. Taylor, in his well-known edition and continuation of Calmet's Dictionary of the Bible, as appears from the following extract, which will form a suitable conclusion to the present remarks: — "Now, where there is a . . . COVENANT, the death of... the CONFIRMER OF THE COVENANT is necessary; for a . . . covenant is of no authority while the confirmer of the . . . covenant is living:' — i. e. while that beast was not slain, between whose divided parts the persons covenanting were to pass, the covenant wanted the most solemn token of its ratification."¹⁷ — But, as in a modern translation of Scripture such expressions as covenant-confirmer, or covenant-ratificator, would be harsh, and scarcely intelligible, the term covenant-victim, which is nearly equivalent, and actually implied, is here substituted.

1) Luke chap, 1, v. 72; — Acts, chap. 3, v. 25; chap. 7, v. 8; — Rom. chap. 9, v. 4; chap. 11. v. 27; — Galat. chap. 3, v. 17; — Ephes. chap. 2, v. 12; — Heb. chap. 8. v. 7, 8, 9, 10; chap. 9, v. 1, 4; chap. 10, v. 16, 29.

2) Rom. chap. 11, v. 36; — 1 Tim. chap. 1, v. 17; chap. 6, v. 15, 16; — Heb. chap. 2, v. 10.

3) Οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς ὁρφανούςε ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. — John, chap. 14, v. 18; — See also v. 1-4; and chap. 16, v. 19-22.

4) Rom, chap. 8. v. 14-17; — Galat. chap. 4. v. 1-7; — Ephes. chap. 1, v. 19-23; — Philipp. chap. 2, v. 5-11; — Heb. chap. 1, v. 1-4; chap. 7, v. 23-28, &c.

5) Genes, chap. 25, v. 5, 6; — Numb. chap. 27, v. 1-11;  — Luke, chap. 15, v. 11-13, 31; — John, chap. 1, v. 10-13; — Rom. chap. 5, v. 8-11; — Galat. chap. 4, v. 1-7; — Titus, chap. 3, v. 3-7.

6) Matt. chap. 24, v. 45-51; — Luke, chap. 12, v. 41-46; — Acts, chap. 1, v. 16-20; — Rom. chap. 1, v. 31; — 2 Tim. chap. 3, v. 3.

7) Gen. chap. 15, v. 7-21; — Psalm 50, v. 5; — Rom. chap. 5, v. 1-11; — 2 Cor. chap. 5, v. 14-21; — Ephes. chap. 2, v. 11-18; — Heb. chap. 6, v. 13-20.

8) Heb. chap. 9, v. 11-22.

9) Dr. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. ii. pp. 225-228.

10) Dr. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. ii. pp. 7, 226.

11) Dr. J. P. Smith, On the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ, pp. 110-120.

12) Gen. chap. 21, v. 27, 32; chap. 31, v. 43, 44; — 1 Sam. chap. 23, v. 16-18; — 1 Kings, chap. 5, v. 12.

13) 2 Kings, chap. 23, v. 1-3; — 2 Chron. chap. 29, v. 10; chap. 34, v. 29-32; — Ezra, chap. 10, v. 1-3.

14) Deuteron. chap. 29, v. 1-15; — Joshua, chap. 24, v. 25; — 2 Kings, chap. 11, v. 4, 17, 18; — 2 Chron. chap. 23, v. 1-3, 16; — Jerem. chap, 34, v. 8, 9; — Hosea, chap. 2, v. 18.

15) Æsopicse Fabulse, Fab. 67, and 12.3; — Ecclesiast. chap. 9. v. 4.

16) Rev. Archibald M'Lean, Paraphrase and Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 259, 260; vol. ii. pp. 38-41.

17) Calmet's Dictionary of the Bible, edited by Taylor; Article Covenant; — also Fragments, vol. i. pp. 205-210, 539-542; — Evangelical Register for 1830; vol. iv. pp. 69-73; 103-109.