HEBREWS 9:14-20 It seems strange to me that in Hebrews 8:6-13, the word "covenant" is used to translate the Greek word "diathaka," but in ch. 9:15-17, the translators switched to the word "testament" to translate the same Greek word. Perhaps the translators sought to be congruous with that which appeared to them to be a dilemma in Hebrews 9:16-17, where two thoughts are introduced which might lean toward the "last will and testament" concept. First, the writer presents the fact that death puts something into effect. Second, he ties in the thought of an inheritance. Both of these ideas could argue for a translation of "testament." Though I certainly am not a Greek scholar, other scholars have seen the inconsistency in many of the English versions and have explained the apparent problem by an exegesis much more compatible with the meaning of the words in the contextual thought. Before looking at vv. 15-17, some observations from the context are in order. In ch. 9:1, reference is made back to the quotation in ch. 8:8-13, in which God had predicted a new covenant. What is the consistent contrast in ch. 8:8-13? Is it a contrast between a covenant and a testament? If not, perhaps it is a contrast between the old "last will and testament" and the new "last will and testament?" Neither of those explanations is adequate, because God was not predicting the coming of a new "last will and testament" as opposed to an old "last will and testament." It is also obvious that a contrast between the old "covenant" and a new "testament" does not fit the thought either, for contrasts and comparisons contain things which are of similar nature. Hence, it is immediately seen that the injection of "testament" into the context presents an anomaly. As the writer continues the contrast in the covenants in ch. 9:2-ff, he introduces the tabernacle ministry in order to convey the superiority of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice over the Mosaic order. Our High Priest did not minister in an earthly tabernacle and sacrifice the blood of animals which could never take away sins. He entered into the heavenly tabernacle with His own blood to make atonement for the sins of mankind once for all. Verses 13-14, form an argument for the superiority of Jesus' blood over animals and the incongruity of these disciples even contemplating a departure from Christ to return to something so inferior. Yes, the blood of animals accomplished what God intended but notice what the blood of Christ procured for us. Verse 15, is a conclusion from the affirmation in v. 14, that Christ's blood purged our conscience from sin. But, for the moment, that which is introduced in that verse will not be pursued in order to establish another important point in the context. Attention is now turned to vv. 18-ff. In v. 18, the writer returns to the idea of the dedication of the first (covenant, not testament) by blood and pursues how that covenant was dedicated. When the old covenant was dedicated by the blood of animals with sprinkling of the book of the covenant and the people, Moses said, "This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you," (v. 20) (KJV). But the word is still "diathaka" and the consistent thought is still a contrast between covenants. Look back to the occasion when the old covenant was put into effect in Exodus 24:7-8. It is not possible to imagine that Moses was conveying to Hebrew people an English concept of "last will and testament." It was the disposition of God's mind that was being enjoined upon the people. In conjunction with the preceding and following contextual thought, it is also imperative to understand that in God's plan, Christ performed more than one function. For instance, Christ is not only the "High Priest" who offered a sacrifice for atonement, but He is also the sacrifice. Furthermore, the sacrifice not only made atonement but it also ratified the covenant. And who is the "mediator" of the new covenant? It is Jesus. The fact that He performed more than one function need not be confusing to the reader. Having viewed the context of Hebrews 9:15-17, from the preceding thoughts and also the following ones, and observed Christ's multi-functions in the new covenant, an attempt will now be made to understand how these verses are compatible with the whole context. In v. 15, Christ is introduced as the "mediator" which fits consistently with "covenant" but not with "testament." To say that Christ is the mediator of the new testament distorts the figure. The point here is that by means of Christ's death those under the first covenant might receive the promise of eternal life. It is important to understand that those who were under the old covenant were not left in sin -- Christ's sacrifice also atoned for their sins. Verse 16, in the KJV reads, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." However, the word which is translated "testament" is still "diathaka." The text literally reads, "For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be offered by the one making the covenant, death." Or it may also be translated in this fashion: "For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be offered the death of the one appointed." The word translated "testator" here comes from the word "diathemenou" which is the participle of the second Aorist of the middle voice of the verb "diatithami" which means "to appoint." In this instance, Jesus is not only the mediator but He is also the appointed sacrifice necessary to ratify the covenant. Therefore, it could be argued by the writer in the uniqueness of this covenant that Jesus, the mediator of the covenant, had to die in order to ratify the covenant, because He was the appointed sacrifice. In Luke 22:29, Jesus said, "And I appoint to you a kingdom, as my father hath appointed to me a kingdom." The word "appoint" in this context is the same one which is found in Hebrews 9:16, 17, that is translated by the KJV as "testator." Verse 17, in the KJV reads, "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." However, neither the context nor the Greek words have changed and, consistently, "diathaka" should be translated "covenant" and not "testament." Literally, this verse reads, "For a covenant is made firm over dead (bodies), since it never has strength when the appointed sacrifice lives." Again, let it be noted that Christ was not only the mediator but He was also the appointed sacrifice and, according to the writer's argument, as long as the appointed sacrifice lived the covenant was not ratified. Remember the argument made in v. 18? The first covenant was dedicated by blood of animals. As long as those appointed animals, lived the covenant was not ratified. It was when those animals were slain that the covenant was put into effect. In a consistent comparison, then, the argument is being made that the new covenant was ratified by the appointed sacrifice, Jesus Christ. In viewing the context in this fashion, one sees the whole block of thought as a consistent contrast and comparison of the old and new covenants. Both Albert Barnes and James Macknight make some good comments on this context.

	Created on 18-Dec-99	Page last updated