What does the wordtestamentmean?

Testament. — We have read of a covenant, the word for which in the original also bears the meaning of testament. And now, reminded, as we are to be, of the way the first covenant was ratified, viz. by blood, the blood of the sacrifices, the sacred writer, ere speaking of that, recalls to his readers how in common life there is the need of death, even that of the testator, before a testament can have validity. And we may understand the introduction of this thought of a testament in vers. 16, 17, since the Lord had to die for the new covenant to be made. Moses, when the first covenant was to be ratified, shed the blood of victims. The Lord gave His own. And as a covenant does not necessarily demand death in order to its establishment — witness that second one made with Israel (Ex. 34:27), and that third made with the same people in the plains of Moab (Deut. 29:1) — whereas a testament necessarily requires it, it seems quite appropriate that the word in vers. 16, 17, which previously had been rendered by covenant, should there be translated testament.*

The meaning of the title given to the latter and distinctively Christian portion of the inspired Word is not in dispute. The Greek word (diatheke) means both "covenant" and "testament," and apparently in this very relation (compare Heb. 9:15-16); though, as in contrast with the "Old Covenant," the law, we naturally find most emphasis laid upon the former significance. "Covenant," says Fausset, "expresses its obligatory character, God having bound Himself by promise. 'Testament' expresses that, unlike other covenants, it is not a matter of bargaining, but all of God's grace, just as a testator has absolute power to do what he will with his own. Jesus' death brings the will of God in our favor into force."

Verses 16 and 17 are a parenthesis. The word translated testament here, and covenant in Hebrews 8, has both those meanings. Used in relation to God it is "a disposition which He has made, on the ground of which man is to be in relationship with Him." In this short parenthesis the writer uses the word in the sense of a testament or will, which only is of force when the testator is dead. If viewed in this way, again we see the absolute necessity of the death of Christ.

At first sight, the connection between these two verses cited above is not obvious to the reader of the English text. What is the relationship between the new covenant [2] in verse 15 and a testament (v.16)? The answer lies in the fact that the same Greek word, diatheke, is capable of either meaning: depending on the context it can be translated as 'covenant' or as 'testament'. The Holy Spirit makes use of this double meaning to highlight a very important point: the new covenant was founded on death. Only through death could redemption take place, transgressions be dealt with, and blessing be given.

There is a parenthesis added here, in which the covenant of which Christ is Mediator is identified with a testament of which Christ is the Testator. The word in the Greek means both of these, "covenant" and "testament;" and the covenant has, in fact, come to us in the shape of a testament which His death has made good. We have been so accustomed to this view of it that it has almost obscured the thought of the covenant itself which is, however, what the apostle dwells upon most earnestly throughout, and here he returns immediately to the thought of it.

A parenthesis is added here, in which the "covenant" of which Christ is Mediator is identified, as another has remarked, with a "testament" of which Christ is the Testator. The word diatheke means both these; and the covenant has in fact come to us in the shape of a testament, which His death has made good. But the apostle returns immediately to the former thought of "covenant."

The allusion in the last clause to the eternal inheritance (for everything is eternal in the Hebrews, standing in decided contrast with Jewish things which were but for a season) leads the Holy Spirit to take up the other meaning of the same word, which was and is rightly enough translated covenant. At first sight every one may have been surprised, especially those that read the New Testament in the language in which God wrote it, at the double meaning of the word which is here translated "covenant." It (διαθήκη) means "testament" as well as "covenant." In point of fact the English translators did not know what to make of the matter; for they give sometimes one, sometimes the other, without any apparent reason for it, except to vary the phrase. In my judgment it is correct to translate it both ways, never arbitrarily, but according to context. There is nothing capricious about the usage. There are certain surroundings which indicate to the competent eye when the word "covenant" is right and when the word "testament" is better.

"And for this cause He is the Mediator of a new 'covenant.'" Whoever heard of such a thing as the mediator of a "testament"? "Testament" means a will, and a mediator is entirely out of place in the matter of such a disposal of goods. Let me just take this opportunity of showing that you do not require to be a scholar in order to be perfectly certain when it ought to be "covenant," and when the right meaning is "testament." Each case admits of proof. The men who made the Authorised Version were as learned persons as ever perhaps were found together in this country; yet they only made confusion in the matter. This demands no effort convincingly to show, though I yield to none in respect for themselves and their work. And although there may be none here present as much versed as they were in all of erudition, it seems to me practicable to put the most unenlightened Christian in a position to decide with certainty where they are right and where they are wrong in dealing with this term. How comes this? By the written word; for the word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword. It is so little a question therefore of learning that every Christian man may have the absolute certainty where the word should be rendered "testament," and where "covenant." Both words are true according to context. Such is the peculiarity of the term; the same word means either, but it cannot mean both in the same sentence. This would be to blunder, not to communicate the truth.

There are certain landmarks in every sentence which determine which of the two senses is meant. The case occurs where it must mean "testament"; there are other instances where nothing will do but "covenant." When the different passages in the New Testament are set out, it will help to ground every believer's trust more and more in the perfectness of scripture. Begin with this very verse, "And for this cause he is mediator of a new covenant." Our translators ought to have seen their error, and that here the word could not possibly mean "testament," because such a functionary is unknown to testamentary business, instead of being universally recognised. Besides, "new" contrasted with "the first," cannot point to "testament," but "covenant." Now the apostle, for I have no doubt he was the writer of this epistle, writes, using a figure that would be known in every country under heaven, and be perfectly familiar to any intelligent persons such as the Jewish believers were. Indeed, there are few things that even ignorant men know more about than "a testament," or "a will." It comes home to men's bosoms and business notoriously. Sons inherit from father or mother, and sometimes they derive from other relatives or friends besides their parents; and as such a thing awakens interest in the dullest, they understand that "a will" only comes into force when the one that devises the property is no more.

This brings us, according to the usual arrangement, to our Epistle, and to this the first mention of the word, where "covenant" has been shown to be right. In Heb. 8:6, 8, 9 (twice), and 10 it is unmistakably and uniformly "covenant"; for what has a "mediator" to do with a testament? Other proofs are so obvious as to need no further pointing out. So in Heb. 9:4 the ark was of the "covenant," with which a will or testament had no congruity and with the "tables" too in the same verse. It has been remarked also that "a mediator" goes with "a covenant," not a testament (verse 15), and the bearing of the "first covenant" is determined by O.T. reference. "Testament" it cannot be. But the inspiring Spirit, in the parenthesis of verses 16, 17, avails Himself of the signification so familiar to all who spoke or read Greek, in order to impress the place that death has for introducing and giving effect to the blessing of the Christian. A covenant does not imply in any case the death of the covenanter to give it validity; a testament invariably supposes the testator's death to bring it into operation. All learning or argument to set aside "testament" and "testator" here is but beating the air. Equally vain is it to establish "testament" in verse 15, or in 18 and 20, where "covenant" alone suits and alone warranted by the O.T. God enjoined a covenant, not a testament, and that by blood. The same proof applies no less stringently to Heb. 10:16-29, Heb. 12:24, and Heb. 13:20, as also to Rev. 11:19.

Now our Lord in Luke 22:29 (to say nothing of John 14:27) prepares the way for the technical term here twice given as "testator." There He was in the act of devising; here it is in its regular form and force, though of course not that exclusively. But no Greek, if he read the sentence simply as it stands in these two verses, would hesitate to take it substantially as given in the A. and R.Vv. It is the equally sure sense of covenant in verse 15, as before also; and no less clearly is covenant understood in verse 18 and expressed in verse 20 (as it should be) and in 10:20. "Testament" here is through neglect of the context, which in every other place of Scripture, save verses 16, 17, needs "covenant." What has a testament to do with blood-shedding? A hard and fast uniformity has its snares as well as a too great facility of change; both are to be shunned as unfaithful to the written word, which is as profound as it is simple, being God's word.