Ver. 15——<And for this cause he is the mediator of the ? new testament, that by means of death, for the re- demption of the transgressions under the first testa- ment, they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
The things which are to be considered in this verse are, 1. The note of connection in the conjunction, “and.” 2. The ground of the ensuing assertion: “For this cause.” 3. The assertion itself: “He is the mediator of the new testament.” 4. The especial reason why he should be so: “For the redemption of transgressions under the first testament.” 5. The way whereby that was to be effected: “ By means of death.” 6. The end of the whole: “That they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” | ___ But before we proceed unto the exposition of the whole or any part of it, a difficulty must be removed from the words as they lie im our translation. For an inquiry may be justly moved, why we ' render the word diaéyxy by a “testament” in this place, whereas
before we have constantly rendered it by a “covenant.” And the reason of it is, because from this verse unto the end of the
_ chapter the apostle argues from the nature and use of a testament - among men, as he directly affirms in the next verse. Hereby he
_ confirms our faith in the expectation of the benefits of this d:aéjxn,— that i is, “ covenant” or “testament.” We may answer, he doth it
ecause it is the true and proper signification of ars word. <Araéyxm properly a “testamentary disposition of things;” as cuvéjzm is a
renant.” For in the composition of the word there i is nothing to
‘intimate a mutual compact or agreement, which is necessary unto a covenant, and is expressed in cvréjxy. However, there is a great
affinity i in the things themselves: for there are covenants which _ have in them free grants and donations, which are of the nature of a _ testament; and earo are testaments whose force is resolved into _ Some conventions, conditions, and agreements, which they borrow _ from the nature of covenants So there is such an affinity between _ them as one name may be expressive of them both.
* See note on the ensuing verse.—Ep.
320 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [ CHAP, Ix.
But against this it will be replied, ‘ That what the apostle speaks unto is in the Hebrew called 12,—that is, a “ covenant,” and it nowhere signifies a testament; so that from thence the apostle could not argue from the nature of a testament what is required there- unto and what doth depend thereon.’ THereunto it is answered, That the LXX, constantly rendering 12, “ berith,” by dsadqun, and not by ovrvd4xn, the apostle made use of that translation and that sig- nification of the word, But this will not, solve the difficulty; for it would resolve all the apostle’s arguings in this great and important mystery into the authority of that translation, which is fallible throughout, and (at least as it is come to us) filled with actual mis- takes. We must therefore give another answer unto this objection. Wherefore I say,—
1. The word 12 could not be more properly rendered by any one word than by dsa64xy. For it being mostly used to express the covenant between God and man, it is of such a nature as cannot properly be termed ovydqxy, which is a covenant or compact upon equal terms of distributive justice between distinct parties; but God’s covenant with man is only the way and the declaration of
the terms whereby God will dispose and communicate good things —
unto us, which hath more of the nature of a testament than of a covenant in it.
2. The word 12 is often used to express a free promise, with an effectual donation and communication of the thing promised, as hath been declared in the foregoing chapter; but this hath more of the nature of a testament than of a covenant.
3. There is no word in the Hebrew language whereby to express a testament but 12 only. Nor is there so in the Syriac: their pnt is nothing but d:ad4x, The Hebrews express the thing by M2? MS, to “order, dispose, .give command concerning the house or household of a dying man,” Isa, xxxviil. 1; 2 Sam, xvii. 23. But they have no other word but berith to signify it; and therefore, where the nature of the thing spoken of requires it, it 1s properly rendered a “testament,” and ought so to be.
Wherefore there is no force used unto the signification of the
word in this place by the apostle. But that which makes the proper’
use of it by him evident in this place, is that he had respect unto its signification in the making of the covenant with the people at Sinai; for this he compares the new testament unto in all its causes and effects. And in that covenant there were three things:—
1. The prescription of obedience unto the people on the part of God; which was received by their consent in an express compliance with the law and terms of it, Deut. v. 1-27. Herein the nature of it, so far as it was a covenant, did consist.