The consideration hereof solves all the appearing difficulties in the nature and manner of the apostle’s argument. The word 13, whereunto respect is here had, is, as we have showed, of a large signification and various use. And frequently it is taken for a “free grant and disposition” of things by promise, which hath the nature of a testament. And in the old covenant there was a free grant and donation of the inheritance of the land of Canaan unto the people; which belongs unto the nature of a testament also. Moreover, both of them, a covenant and a testament, do agree in the general nature of their confirmation, the one by blood, the other by death. Hereon the apostle, in the use of the word 6:a64x, doth diversely argue both unto the nature, necessity, and use of the death of the mediator of the new testament. He was to die in the confirmation of it as it was-a testament, he being the testator of it; and he was to offer himself as a sacrifice in his blood, for the estab- - lishment of it, as it had the nature of a covenant. Wherefore the VOL,. XXII.
338 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. IX,
apostle doth not argue, as some imagine, merely : frovn the significa- tion of the word, whereby, as they say, that in the original is not exactly rendered. And those who have from hence troubled them- selves and others about the authority of this epistle, have nothing to thank for it but their own ignorance of the design of the apostle, and the nature of his argument. And it were well if we all were more sensible of our own ignorance, and more apt to acknowledge it, when we meet with difficulties in the Scripture, than for the most part we are. Alas! how short are our lines, when we come to fathom the depths of it! How inextricable difficulties do appear sometimes in passages of it, which when God is pleased to teach us, are all pleasant and easy!
These things being premised, to clear the scope and nature of the apostle’s argument, we proceed unto a brief exposition of the words.
Ver. 16.—“ For where a testament [%s,] there must also of neces- sity be the death of the testator.”
There are two things in the words: 1. A supposition of @ testa- ment. 2. What is required thereunto.
1, In the first place there is, (1.) The note of inference; (2.) The supposition rtself.
(1.) The first is the particle “for.”. This doth not infer a reason to ensue of what he had before affirmed, which is the common use of that illative; but only the introduction of an illustration of it, from what is the usage of mankind in such eases, on supposition that this covenant is also a testament. For then there must be the death of the testator, as it is in all testaments amongst men.
(2.) The supposition itself is in these words, "Oou dsadgun. The verb substantive is wanting. ‘“ Where a testament 7s ;” so it is by us supplied, it may be, not necessarily. » For the expression, “Where a testament is,” may suppose that the death of the testator is required unto the making of a testament; which, as the apostle showeth in the next verse, it is not, but only unto its evecution. ‘In the case of a testament, namely, that it may be executed,’ is the meaning of the word “where;” that is, ‘wherever. Amongst all sorts of men, living according unto the light of nature and the conduct of reason, the making of testaments is in use; for without it neither can private industry be encouraged nor public peace maintained. Wherefore, as was before observed, the apostle argueth from the common usage of mankind, resolved into the principles of reason and equity.
Oder ee + +2 What is required unto the validity of a testament; dualswévov é- and that is, the death of the testator. And the way wget of the introduction of this death unto the validity of a testament is, by “being brought in,”’—gépeotas; that it enter,
Tap.
“Orov diabjnn.
VER. 16, 17.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 339
namely, after the ratifying of the testament, to make it of force, or to give it operation. The testament is made by a living man; but whilst he lives it is dead, or of no use. That it may operate and be effectual, death must be brought into the account. This death must be the death of the testator,—rod dsadeuévov. *O dsacdéwevos is he who disposeth of things; who hath right so to do, and actually doth it. This in a testament is the testator. And d:ad4x9 and de- Jéuevog have in the Greek the same respect unto one another as “testamentum” and “testator” in the Latin.
Wherefore, if the new covenant hath the nature of a testament, it must have a testator, and that testator must die, before it can be of force and efficacy; which is what was to be proved,
This is further confirmed,—
Ver. 17—“ For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all, while the testator liveth.”
It is not of the making and constitution of a testament, but of the force and execution of it, that he speaks. And in these words he gives a reason of the necessity of the death of the testator there- unto. And this is because the validity and efficacy of the testament depend solely thereon. And this reason he introduceth by the conjunction ydp, “ for.”