2. Use of 8ia9iiKt) in LXX. — It is most natural, in view of this preponderance of references to the OT, to seek in the LXX use of diaOriKr) the clue to its meaning in the NT. diaOrjKr) is the all but invariable translation of the Hebrew word nn^ {b'rith), which in our EVV is always rendered ' covenant,' never ' testament.' In some instances — as, for example, 1 S 1832318, 1 K 202*— the word indis- putably means ' covenant ' in the full sense, i.e. a mutual relationship between two parties. In others, the idea of the mutual relationship is wanting, as in 1 S IP ; but the idea of setting up a relationship, which may be done by the free act or choice of one person, is always present. It is in this later sense that we understand the Divine b'rith. This is a Divine order or arrangement which takes its rise without any human co-opera- tion, springing from the choice of God Himself, whose will and determination account for both its origin and its character. The one-sidedness of such an institution makes the word ' covenant ' a rather unfortunate choice in our EVV. Kautzsch goes so far as to state that ' the usual rendering of b'rith, namely " covenant," ought to be avoided as incor- rect and misleading' (HDB v. 630b). It seems that we do not possess a word in English which exactly conveys the meaning of the Divine h^rith. Neither ' arrangement ' nor ' disposition ' is at all adequate. We are compelled in the OT to continue the use of 'covenant,' merely making the mental qualifica- tion required.
We have next to inquire why the LXX chose and adhered to the word diadrjKT] as the rendering of b^rith. It is an undoubted fact that throughout the later classical period, and certainly in the early Christian period, this word had, in common usage, the meaning of 'will' or 'testament.' It is sometimes stated that there is only one instance of its use in the sense of ' covenant ' in the whole of Greek literature, namely in Aristophanes, Birds, 440. Building upon this instance, Wackernagel has recently suggested that this meaning was current in the Ionic dialect, and may have been derived by the LXX from that source. If this were proved, many questions would be answered at a stroke ; but unless some further evidence can be adduced in its favour it seems very precarious. On the other hand, further investigation rather qualifies the absoluteness of the assertion that
BiaOriK-r} means ' will ' and nothing else. Ramsay in his Historical Commentary on the Galatians, and Norton in his Study of AIAGHKH, both show that, before will-making in our modem sense had become part of Greek social life, the word diaOijKiri might be used to express ' a disposition of relations between two parties, where one party lays down the conditions which the other accepts,' not an ordinary bargain or contract, but a more dignified and solemn compact or covenant (Norton, op. cit. p. 31). In particular Ramsay speaks of the diadriKr) as a solemn and binding covenant, guaranteed by the authority of the whole people and their gods, and being primarily an arrangement for the de- volution of religious duties and rights (op. cit. p. 361 f.). Accordingly, it is urged that in the early part of the 3rd cent. B.C. no better word was available to express the OT idea of a solemn and irrevocable disposition, made by God Himself of His own gracious choice, and meant to secure a re- ligious inheritance to His chosen people. Accept- ing this as the best explanation offered as yet, we may observe that the later Greek translators, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, writing at a time Avhen the meaning of Biad-rjKT) had been nar- rowed down to mean ' will ' exclusively, felt obliged to fall back on the usual Greek word for ' covenant,' (TvvdrjKr}. Similarly, as Riggenbach has pointed out (Theol. Stud. 294), Josephus instinctively re- places diad-fiKT) by ffvvdrjKT] or the cognate verb, where the reference is undoubtedly to a covenant agree- ment between man and man, his linguistic sense being offended by the use of Siadi^KTj in any sense but that of ' will.' We come, therefore, to the conclusion that in NT times the use of biad-fjKri in the sense of a solemn promise or undertaking had become an archaism. Readers of the English Bible can easily recall analogies to such a process in the use of words like ' conversation ' or ' peculiar ' or 'walk disorderly.'
3. Use of SiaOi^KTi in apostolic and sab-apostolic times. — (1) Ordinary usage. — When we come to the NT period, there is no possible doubt that in ordinary usage diadi^Kri means 'will' (so G. Milligan and J. H. Moulton in Expositor, 7th ser., vi. [1908] 563). 'The agreement of papyri and in- scriptions with regard to the use of diadrjKr} is veiy remarkable. , . . Any number of citations may be made, and there is never a suggestion of any other meaning ' (than ' will '). Deissmann, agreeing with this conclusion, emphatically declares that the usage was so fixed that St. Paul could not have era- ployed the word in the sense of ' covenant.' ' There is ample material to back me in the statement that no one in the Mediterranean world in the first century A.D. would have thought of finding in the word diadrjKrj the idea of "covenant." St. Paul would not, and in fact did not. To St. Paul the word meant what it meant in his Greek OT, " a uni- lateral enactment," in particular "a will or testa- ment"' (Light from the Ancient East"^, p. 341). In his St. Paul (p. 152) he goes further and says that St. Paul found in his Greek Bible the idea that God had executed a will in our favour. It does not, however, seem possible to grant that St. Paul, who read his Hebrew Bible as well as his Greek, always thought of a will when he read of the Divine b^rtth. Yet the expression of b^rith by a word that meant ' will ' may have enriched the OT idea with new associations. We may note in further illustration of the usage in Jewish authors that in the Greek apocryphal writings diadi^Kr} and ffwdriKi) are used, once at any rate, as synonymous terms (cf. Wis 12^1 ; • covenants of good promises ' (ffvvd-fiKTi), and 18^ : ' covenants made with the irathers' (Siad-qK-q). Philo appears to use Siad-qKi) in the sense of ' will,' saying that it is written ' for the benefit of those who are worthy of a gift.'