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 the inspired writer could not have intended to construct a solid argument by the combination of such heterogeneous materials, and that the term diα0hкn, 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 dialhêŋ, and is not at all supported by any meaning of the Hebrew, "—the cor. responding term in the Old Testament.* 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,— Όπου γὰρ διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι Toû diabeμévov,”-Heb. chap. 9, v. 16, Dr. Stuart in like manner makes the following concession.—" pépeσ0α, 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 äπag λeyóμevov,”-a singular expression. Were this statement strictly correct, it would strengthen the argument for interpreting the word diabéuevos 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 pépoμai, 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,-" Aιaðýên yàp èπì veкpoîs BeBaía," etc.,—the expression, ènì vekpoîs, 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 that could be contrived in favor of the opinion which he endeavors 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.† Dr. Pye Smith, in his admirable work on the Priesthood of Christ, evidently inclines to the opposite opinion; but, with his usual modesty and candor, mentions two difficulties with which he and others conceive it to be pressed, namely,—“ the necessity of making 8 dialéμevos and * Dr. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. ii. pp. 225 + Ibid., pp. 7, 226. Vekpol to signify the animal sacrifices by which the most solemn covenants in early times were ratified; whereas the phrase dialéσlai diabýкn is common in the Septuagint, and always refers to the act of the person who constitutes the covenant, and veкpol, or veкpà, 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." *-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 dialéolai dialкny 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 ambessadors;-" And they two made a league together; Καὶ διέθεντο διαθήκην ἀνα μέσον ἑαυτῶν.” †— In some instances 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, ☺eoû 'Iσpaǹλ.”——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, etc.; Kal vûv διαθώμεθα διαθήκην τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν.” * Dr. J. P. Smith, On the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ, pp. 110-120. + Gen. chap. 21, v. 27, 32; chap. 31, v. 43, 44;-1 Sam. chap. 23, v. 16-18;-1 Kings, chap. 5, v. 12. 2 Kings, chap. 28, v. 1-3;-2 Chron. chap. 29, v. 10; chap. 84, v. 29-32;-Ezra, chap. 10, v. 1-3. ... 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 afterward 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; Kal ovx 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; Kal διέθετο Ἰησοῦς διαθήκην πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ 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; Kal διέθετο Ιωαδαὲ διαθήκην ἀνα μέσον Κυρίου, καὶ ἀνα μέσον τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ ανα μέσον τοῦ λαοῦ, τοῦ εἶναι εἰς 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.* It hence appears that the scriptural use of the phrase dialéodal dialкny 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 sacrifce; τοὺς διατιθεμένους Thν diałʼnкný avтoû èπl Ivoíais ”—literally—" over slaughtered victims ;" -an expression exactly corresponding to that in Heb. chap. 9, v. 17. "A covenant [is] ratified over dead [victims]; dialýên èπl veкpoîs BeBala." -Dr. Smith's objection to such an application of the term veêpoîs, 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;-" "O atλovpos . . . προσεποιεῖτο αὑτον ΝΕΚΡΟΝ εἶναι. The cat *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, pretended to be dead;”“ ἐπειδὴ εἶδε τὴν χελιδόνα ΝΕΚΡΑΝ épnμovμévnv · when he saw the swallow left dead;"—and the third from the Septuagint translation of the book of Ecclesiastes;-“ 'O kúwv 8 ζῶν, αὐτὸς ἀγαθὸς ὑπὲρ τὸν λέοντα τὸν ΝΕΚΡΟΝ. A living dog is better than a dead lion." * 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 o diadéμevos, and of accounting for its being so applied. But, if diaкn here means a covenant of reconciliation, & dialéμevos 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. 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 *Esopicæ Fabulæ, Fab. 67, and 123;-Ecclesiast. chap. 9, v. 4. + Rev. Archibald M'Lean, Paraphrase and Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 259, 260; vol. ii. pp. 38-41. |