« PreviousContinue »
not only in this, but in sundry other places of the Scripture also, of two distinct covenants or testaments; and such different natures, properties, and effects ascribed to them, as seem to constitute two distinct covenants," - Owen on Heb. viii, 6. Vol. vi. p. 82.
Thus Owen's method of overcoming the difficulty is, by opposing the old covenant in its New-Testament form, to the same covenant in its Old-Testament form.
Roberts, holding the same fallacy, says: “ This covenant, being another and a very diverse covenant, both from the old covenant and from all that went before—not in substance, but in circumstance ; not in essence, but in accidents ; not in inward constitution, but in outward administration—is called a New COVENANT."— Roberts's Mystery and Marrow, p. 1255.
This, undoubtedly, is the preferable of the two common ways of treating it. Upon the supposition of there being radically but one covenant, testament and covenant must then be synonimous, or the thing signified must partake of the nature of both : as expressed by Roberts, “they are fæderal testaments, or testamentary covenants." (Roberts, p. 1262.) I must add the reason he assigns for the present New Testament being called the second covenant : " Seeing (says he) the Sinai covenant was not the first.....nor is the new covenant the second after the Sinai covenant”.....but “because they are the first and most illustrious covenants; although, in regard of time and order of discovery, the old covenant was not precisely the first, nor this new the second." His second reason is more to my purpose :
The Greek word, Diatheké, translated covenant in Heb. viii. 6, 7, alleged for this denomination, may also as well be rendered testament ; for if the first testament had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second ;' and thus the same Greek word is often translated testament; and then the difficulty is easily removed. For these two covenants being the only testamental covenants, the old covenant was the first testament, and the new covenant was the second testament."
Witsius says, book iii. ch. ii, “ If we view the substance of the covenant, it is but one only; nor is it possible it should be otherwise..... But if we attend to the circumstances of the covenant, it was dispensed at sundry times and in divers manners; under various economies, for the manifestation of the manifold wisdom of God.'” After proving this at some length, he concludes : “ To sum up the whole then, in short: the Apostle here, Acts xv.ll, declares three things : 1st, that the fathers were saved : 2dly, by the very same covenant that we are : 3dly, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ : intimating likewise, by all this reasoning, that there can possibly be but one way of salvation."
In book iii. ch. iii. sect. 3 and 4, he says: “ The promise of the common salvation which is in Christ, whether formerly made to the fathers, or to us at this day, does not belong to the Old and New Testament, as such ; but absolutely to the testament or covenant of grace.
Witsius also, in common with all who treat it in this way, uses testament” and
synonymous; but in so doing, he is guilty of the sophism of interchanging the words testament and covenant as the argument requires, and thereby making the alone covenant the new covenant, because it is the NewTestament administration of the only covenant revealed. What follows, is precisely the view I take of the covenants and testaments, if I may be allowed to preserve the distinction between the two words :
“ The difference of the testaments consists in the different manner of proposing and dispensing the same saving grace, and in some different adjuncts and circumstances. Whatever was typical in that dispensation, and denoted imperfection, and an acknowledgment that the RANSOM was not yet paid, belongs to the Old Testament: whatever shews that the redemption is actually wrought out, is peculiar to the New Testament. Without adverting to this, it is not possible we can have a distinct knowledge of the nature of both testaments.
“But let us insist a little further on this point, if possibly we may advance what may set the truth in a clear light. Three things are to be distinguished: The TESTAMENT of grace [or rather, as I should say, the covenant], the old, and new testaments. To each its own inheritance is to be assigned : that of the testament (covenant] of grace is eternal salvation, with every thing belonging to it, through Jesus Christ; which is equally common to believers in all ages. The old and new testaments, being different economies of this one testament (covenant] of grace, which they comprise, suppose also, and include the same heavenly inheritance.”— Witsius on the Covenants.
“ The Old Testament was pure Gospel promising Christ, as the New Testament is pure Gospel performing and exhibiting Christ. The time of the Old Testament, was a time of signifying Christ; the time of the New, was a time of manifesting Christ.”- Roberts, p. 987.
Roberts quotes from Clemens Alexandrinus, as follows : “The saving testament or covenant is but one, from the beginning of the world; although in the manner of giving it may seem diverse. For substance, the Old and New Testaments are but one, confirmed by the death of one and the same Testator : for manner of adıninistration, they are two ; the Old promising the Testator in the types, the other performing him in the truth. In the Old Testament the New is veiled : in the New Testament
the Old is revealed. And Lactantius saith, they are not diverse, because the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both is the same Testator Christ.”- Roberts, Mystery, &c.
This sufficiently establishes our now being under the covenant of imputed righteousness, as confirmed in the New Testament dispensation.
The other ordinary method of treating the covenants is more dangerous and reprehensible; as, in consequence of universally rendering diatheké by covenant, great violence is done to that passage of Scripture, Heb. ix. 15-17, where the Holy Ghost defines most exactly the nature of a testament.
I will, in the first place, instance Dr. Doddridge on Heb. ix. 16:“"For where a covenant (is),' answerable to that which typified this of which I now speak, “it necessarily imports the death of that by which the covenant is confirmed. For you know that sacrificial rites have ever attended the ost celebrated covenants which God hath made with men: so that I may say, ' a covenant (is) confirmed over the dead;' so that it does not avail, nor has any force at all, while' he by whom it is confirmed • liveth.'” Doddridge adds this note :
By which the covenant is confirmed.' Mr. Pierce would render it, of that sacrifice which is appointed by God to pacify. And he brings a remarkable instance from Appian, where diathemenon signifies a pacifier. He saith, The scope of the writer requires that it should be so translated here; and accordingly in the next verse he renders it,' the pacifier can do nothing as long as he liveth. But I think if it be rendered, “ He
' by whom it is confirmed,' the argument will be clearer. Yet I confess considerable difficulties attend both these interpretations; though the connection with what follows appears easier upon that which I have given. The reader will do well if he consult Dr. Whitby upon this passage ; who assigns and vindicates an interpretation much the same with that which is proposed in this version and paraphrase. The phrase which I have rendered ' necessarily imports,' is very strong. The death must be produced; it must not only be effected, but also made apparent. Elsner hath shewn (Observ. vol. ii. p. 361) that the word is used in a forensic sense for what is produced and proved, or made apparent in a court of judicature.”—Doddridge's Expos. vol. vi. 65.
Dr. Whitby quotes from Mr. Le Clerc as follows:
“ This discourse is to be looked upon merely as the play of an Hellenistic writer, who, because he saw that diatheké was used for that covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator, and signified also a testament, and Christ was dead, thence deduced consectaries, which are true indeed considered in themselves, but here rely upon weak principles ; rather to set off his discourse according to the custom of that age, than to convert the Jews to the faith by the power of reasoning. ”
After most justly reprehending these pernicious sentiments, which Dr. Whitby does at considerable length, he renders the 16th and 17th verses by what appear to me the veriest truisms :
“ For where there is a covenant made by death, or ratified by the blood of him that makes it, there of necessity must intervene the death of him that makes the covenant or promise. For a covenant (of this nature) is only firm in the death of them who make it: as other covenants were ratified by the death of the sacrifices used at the making of them, it is of no force while the maker of the covenant lives.”—Dr. Whitby, in loco.
Nearly the same rendering is followed in Bagster's Polyglott : “For where a covenant is, there must necessarily be the death of that by which it is confirmed; for a covenant is confirmed over dead(victims), and does not avail while that by which it is confirmed liveth."-Bagster's Polyglott.
. - . Scott gives two glosses, which I will insert, because they shew the difficulty there is attached to either of the common methods, and also because they display a lowliness of mind so desirable to imitate.
He says, on Heb. ix. 15–17: “ Christ was appointed to be mediator of the new covenant ....in order by nieans of his death to atone .....for the transgressions committed by believers under the old covenant, or legal dispensation.....who were made partakers of the spiritual and eternal blessings, through the anticipated efficacy of Christ's redemption. Yet that grace was finally confirmed to them by his death ; so, in this respect, the covenant he mediated might also be considered as a testament..... Thus the passage has generally been interpreted. But this is the only place in which the original word (diatheké) is expressly used in Scripture for a testament, or the will of a dying person. The change of the meaning, also, from covenant to testament, seems unprecedented. The mediator of a testament, the blood of a testament, are expressions to which it is difficult to annex any precise ideas ; and the Sinai covenant can hardly in any sense be called a testament. Several modern expositors have therefore endeavoured to establish another interpretation.
“For this reason, of the new covenant he is the Mediator cr High Priest *, by whom its blessings are dispensed ; and also the sacrifice, by which it is procured and ratified; that, his death being accomplished for obtaining the pardon of the transgressions of the first covenant, believers of all ages and nations, as the called seed of Abraham, may receive the promised eternal in
The opposition of Mediator is between Moses and Christ, and therefore it cannot be as High Priest.
« Christ was
heritance. For where a covenant is made by sacrifice, there is a necessity that the death of the appointed sacrifice be produced : for, according to the practice of God and man, à covenant is made firm over dead sacrifices; seeing it never hath force whilst the goat, calf, or bullock, appointed as the sacrifice of ratification, liveth ; because from the beginning God ratified his covenants by sacrifice, to preserve among
men the expectation of the sacrifice of his Son: hence not even the covenant at Sinai was made without sacrifice of blood.”—Macknight in Scott, in loco.
Such interpretation entirely nullifies any value or merit in the atonement; and this, moreover, in the part of Scripture where that doctrine is expressly handled, or has its proper and principal seat. It becomes no longer a condition, but a confirmation ; which is clearly quite contrary to the context, Heb. ix. 22, “ Without shedding of blood there is no remission : " which makes it not only a condition, but the only condition.
How much better is the statement of Polhil. not a mere witness, but a Priest, Redeemer, and Mediator : his blood was not only a testimony, but a propitiation. Neither was it only confirmative of the covenant, but fundative. All the promises of grace and glory spring up out of his satisfactory and meritorious passion.”-Polhil's Divine Truths, p.51.
“ Intercession is an act or exercise of Christ's sacerdotal office, subsequent to and dependent upon his foregoing sacrifice.”- H. Hurst's Revival of Grace.
Scott continues as follows: " It appears to me that the original will admit of this interpretation. But the nature of this work does not admit of my enlarging on the criticisms by which it is supported. On the one hand, the cavils which have been raised against the Apostle's reasoning as inconclusive, if the first interpretation be adopted ; and, on the other hand, the venerable names which have sanctioned it ; with other circumstances of a similar nature, render me afraid of too confidently preferring either interpretation. I cannot, however, but think that the latter exposition is the most obvious, and consonant to the Apostle's general way of reasoning."-Scott in loco.
As to the rendering of diatheké, Witsius says, p. 43, “ It both singularly and plurally very often denotes a testament; as Budæus shews in his Comment, Sing. Græc. from Isocrates, Æschines, Demosthenes, and others. In this sense we hinted it was used by the Apostle, Heb. ix. 15.”— Witsius on the Covenants, p. 43.
What Dr. Owen advances on Heb. viii. 6, to prove that the Old cannot mean the Adamic covenant, is also important on this point.
“ The covenant called afterwards the first, was diatheké,