334 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [ CHAP. Ix.
Besides the particular observations which we have made on the several passages of this verse, something may yet in general be ob- served from it; as,—
Obs. VIII. A new testament providing an eternal inheritance in sovereign grace; the constitution of a mediator, such a mediator, for that testament, in infinite wisdom and love; the death of that tes- tator for the redemption of transgressions, to fulfil the law, and satisfy the justice of God; with the communication of that inherit- ance by promise, to be received by faith in all them that are called; are the substance of the mystery of the gospel. And all these are with wonderful wisdom comprised by the apostle in these words.
Obs. 1X. That the efficacy of the mediation and death of Christ — extended itself unto all the called under the old testament, is an evident demonstration of his divine nature, his pre-existence unto all these things, and the eternal covenant between the Father and him about them.
Obs. X. The first covenant did only forbid and condemn trans- gressions; redemption from them is by the new testament alone.
Obs. XI. The glory and efficacy of the new covenant, and the assurance of the communication of an eternal inheritance by virtue of it, depend hereon, that it was made a testament by the death of the mediator; which is further proved in the following verses.
Verses 16, 17.
“Orov yep diacbjun, Jdvarov avdynn Pepeodas rod diademévour dscbnun yep emi venpois PeCata, ewe! mqrore loybes bre Cn 6 Osademevos.
Odvarov dveyun Qépeobor. Syr., 872 WT NO, “ the death of him is declared,” showed, argued, or proved. ‘ Mors intercedat necesse est ;” “ negesse est mortem intercedere.” Ar., “ Necesse est mortem ferri;” which is not proper in the Latin tongue: however, there is an emphasis in Qépecdes, more than is expressed by “intercedo.”, Asadewévov. Syr., 17227 7, “of him that made it ;” “ of the tes- tator.” "Ext vexpois. Syr., 77807? >, “in him that is dead;” “in mortuis,” “among them that are dead.” BeCa/a. Vulg., “confirmatum est;” and so the Syriac, “ratum est,” more proper. Myrore ioxve:. Syr., snen ma md, “ there is no use, profit, or benefit in it.” Ar., “nunquam valet ;” “ quandoquidem nun- quam valet ;” “ nondum valet ;” “it is not yet of force,”*
? Exposirion.—Scholefield characterizes this passage “as perhaps the most perplexing in the whole New Testament.” -'The dispute relates to the import of 6:a@Oy4xn, whether the translation “covenant” should be retained, as the word is commonly rendered; or whether the translation “ destament” is not more suitable to the idea conveyed, particularly by verses 16, 17. Most of the Greek fathers, most of the Reformed theologians, Grotius, Pierce, Doddridge, Michaelis, Macknight, Scholefield, Tholuck, Dr Henderson, Turner, and Ebrard, pronounce in favour of “covenant.” On the other hand, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Wolf, Campbell, Bengel, Schleusner, Wahl, Rosenmiiller, Bretschneider, Kuinoel, Stuart, Robinson, Conybeare and Howson, decide in favour of “ testa- ment” as the proper translation. The central difficulty in the passage will pro-_ bably be admitted to lie in the meaning of dsabéuevos. Conybeare and Howson
VER. 16, 17.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 335
Ver. 16, 17.—For where a testament [%s,] there must also of necessity be brought in the death of the testator. For a testament [is| firm [or ratified] after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force whilst the testator liveth.
There is not much more to be considered in these verses, but only how the observation contained in them doth promote and confirm the argument which the apostle insists upon. Now this is to prove the necessity and use of the death of Christ, from the nature, ends, and use of the covenant whereof he was the mediator; for it being a testament also, it was to be confirmed with the death of the testator. This is proved in these verses from the notion of a testament, and the only use of it amongst men. Tor the apostle in this epistle doth argue several times from such usages amongst men as, pro- ceeding from the principles of reason and equity, were generally prevalent among them. So he doth in his discourse concerning the assurance given by the oath of God, chap. vi. And here he doth the same from what was commonly agreed upon, and suitable unto the reason of things, about the nature and use of a testament. The things here mentioned were known to all, approved by all, and were the principal means of the preservation of peace and property in human societies. For although testaments, as unto their especial regulation, owe their original unto the Roman civil law, yet as unto the substance of them, they were in use amongst all mankind from the foundation of the world. For a testament is the just determi- nation of a man’s will concerning what he will have done with his goods after his decease; or, it is the will of him that is dead. Take
affirm that “the A. v. is unquestionably correct in translating d:«64<n “ testament” in this passage. The attempts which have been made to avoid this meaning are irreconcilable with any natural explanation of ¢ dsaézuevos.” Macknight renders it “appointed sacrifice.” But this would involve a grammatical error: and to obviate this consideration, Scholefield proposes a rendering in an active sense, “ mediating sacrifice ;” but he candidly owns that there is no instance of the word being used elsewhere in this signification; and besides, there is great harshness in affixing to Osedéwevos a meaning so widely different from its congener, d:adqzun, occurring as they do inthe same sentence. Whitby and Burton, accordingly, pro-