262
COVENANT
COVENANT
Yet when he adds that it is 'a symbol of grace, Avhich God has placed between Himself who oflers it, and man who receives it,' he seems to go back to the somewhat wider use we found in the LXX (Philo, de Milt. Norn. vi. 52 f. ; of. Kiggenbach, op. cit. p. 311 f.).
(2) NT usage. — Passing now to the NT, we must ask whether its writers use diaOi^Ky] in what is undoubtedly the Hebrew OT sense of thecovenant between man and God, i.e. 'unilateral enactment,' or as 'will,' or in a sense derived from both mean- ings, (a) It is best to begin with He 9^""'^. Here, in spite of some attempts to retain the meaning of 'covenant' throughout (Westcott, Hatch, Dods, et al. ), the weight of evidence seems decisive that in v.^", at anj'^ rate, the writer is speaking of a human will. As has been said, ' if the question Avere put to any person of common intelligence, "What document is that which is of no force at all during the lifetime of the person who executed it ? " the answer can only be, " A man's will or testament."' The most usual exposition grants this, but then supposes that the writer slips from one meaning in v.'^ to another in v.'^, and then back again to the first one. But if Philo, with whose writings the author was familiar, could, as we have seen, read the notion of will into an OT passage, there is little ground for denying the same possibility here. And when once the translation ' will ' is admitted throughout the passage, the argument, which is so difficult to follow from any other point of view, becomes luminous. Verse 16 affirms that the in- heritance contemplated under the first testament of God could not be enjoyed until a death had taken place ; v." adds that this is illustrated by the ordinary human practice, where a will comes into force aifter death ; v.'^ states further that this was foreshadowed, even at the time when the first testament was given, by the death of the victim, which, as the whole argument of the Epistle shows, looked onwards to the perfect sacrifice of Christ. It is indeed ui-ged that the use of the word ' medi- ator' in v. '5 is fatal to the translation 'will,' since a will needs no mediator, whilst a covenant does. But, as has been shoAvn by Cremer {Lexicon, p. 421), citing illustrations from Diodorus Siculus, iv. 54, and Jos. Ant. iv. vi. 7, the word Mfo"/ri7s (mediator) may be used in the sense of ' one who appears or stands security for anything,' ' one who pledges himself for promises,' a parallel conception to the ' surety ' in He 7-^. This is admirably illustrated by the use of the cognate verb in He 6^^ ' God interposed with an oath.' God gave His promise to Abraham direct, and by the oath which He Bwore condescended to become the guarantor of His own word.
If we admit this translation of Siad-^KT] in these verses, it appears to follow also in 9'^'^ 10^9 13-", as also in 7" and 12-^. The references in 8''*, in view of the direct citation from Jeremiah, seem less certain, though Riggenbach argues for the same meaning here. A Siae-qKy) written on the heart is less easy to think of as a 'testament.' Yet the connexion of the diaO-qK-q with tlie promise in v.* suggests that this thought was not far away. This is one of those cases where we cannot deny tliat the archaic sense may have been present, but we may at least claim that it has been enriched by the new meaning of the word. Such a use is easily illustrated. When Newman in his sermon on ' Unreal Words ' says : ' Our professions, our creed, our prayers, our dealings, our conversation, our arguments, our teaching, must henceforth be sincere,' and goes on immediately to quote : ' In godljr sincerity . , . we have had our conversation in this world,' he understands of course the arcliaic biblical use of the word he quotes. But can we doubt that it has been enriched to him in such a
context and on such a subject by its later use to describe speech ?
(b) Turning to St. Paul's Epistles, we may begin with the much-discussed passage in Gal 3^^"". Here St. Paul declares that he is about to speak 'after the manner of men.' By some he is sup- posed to mean that he intends to use the word diadriKT] in its ordinary human sense of ' will,' as opposed to its biblical sense of ' covenant.' But it appears more likely that he means that having taken his previous arguments from Scrip- ture he will now make his point clearer by taking an illustration from common daily life. Obviously if he does this he must give to SiadriKT) its current meaning, which is without doubt ' will,' But if so, we ask whether he reverts to another meaning for the same word in v.^''. The whole circle of ideas is against this. It is a diaOi^KT] of promise, i.e. a testament. It belongs to Abraham and to his seed, it comes by way of gift, it invests those taking part in it wdth the rights of inheritance. The testator designates his heir, and arranges that at a predetermined time he shall receive the specified boon (4^). It is indeed argued (Lukyn Williams, et al. ) that we must not translate ' will,' because this connotes death. But St. Paul seems ,to have guarded himself against the over-pressing of his argument, showing by his ' though it be but a man's will ' that the analogy was not exact. The word BiaOriKT) suggested to him that there was a human document which no one could set aside, namely a will ; how much more then when God makes a will must that remain unalterable.