They which are called (of cecAnuévor). Without regard to nationality. The scope of the new covenant was wider than that of the old. Comp. Acts ii. 39. In ch. iii. 1, the readers are addressed as “partakers of a heavenly calling,” which corresponds with “eternal inheritance” here. Those who obtain this inheritance are designated as “called.” See Eph. i. 18; 1 Th. ii. 12; v. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 9.
Of eternal inheritance (ris aiwviov xAnpovopias). Rend. “the eternal inheritance”: something recognised as a fact. For «Anpovopuia inheritance, see on 1 Pet. i. 4, and comp. Eph. i. 14. The whole statement implies that the provisions of the Levitical system were inadequate to procure and insure full salvation.
16. For where a testament is (d7rov yap SiaOjxn). “The English Version has involved this passage in hopeless obscur- ity by introducing the idea of a testament and a testator.” This statement of Rendall (Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 159) is none too strong. That interpretation, however, is maintained by a very strong array of modern expositors.* It is based upon KAnpovoyla inheritance; it being claimed that this word changes the whole current of thought. Hence it is said that the new covenant established by Christ is here represented
* As Bleek, Alford, Liinemann, Dwight, De Wette, Weiss, Briggs, Bruce, Rey. Vers., Lightfoot (on Gal. iii. 15), Thayer (Lex.), Edwards. Weizsicker and von Soden both render Stiftung ‘‘ foundation” ; @ basis, formally estab- lished, on which certain benefits are insured to those who accept it. Such a basis might be of the nature either of a covenant or a testament. Bruce in- cludes both under the word. Waughan renders ‘‘ arrangement,’? whether of relations (covenant) or of possessions (testament).
Cu. IX.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 487
as a testamentary disposition on his part, which could become operative in putting the heirs.in possession of the inheritance only through the death of Christ. See Additional Note at the end of this chapter.
There must also of necessity be the death of the tes- tator (@dvarov avdyxn pépecOat Tod Siabewévov). Rend. tt is necessary that the death of the institutor (of the covenant) should be borne. With the rendering testament, pépec@a is well-nigh inexplicable. If covenant the meaning is not difficult. If he had meant to say it is necessary that the institutor die, he might better have used yévec@ar: “it is necessary that the death of the institutor take place”; but he meant to say that it was necessary that the institutor die representatively; that death should be borne for him by an animal victim. If we render testament, it follows that the death of the testator himself is referred to, for which @dvatov PépecOas is a very unusual and awkward expression.
17. For a testament is of force after men are dead (diaOnnn yap emt vexpois BeBaia). Rend. “for a covenant is of force (or sure) over (or upon) dead (victims).” Comp. Soph. Hlect. 237; Eurip. Jon. 228; Aesch. Humen. 3816; Hdt. iv. 162. See also Lev. xxi. 5.
Otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (érrel 7 Tore ioxyder bre Sp 6 Stabduevos). Rend. “since it hath not then force when the institutor is alive”: until he has been representatively slain.
18. Whereupon (dev). Rend. wherefore, or for which reason: on the general principle that a covenant must be rati- fied by death.
Neither the first testament was dedicated without blood (ovde 4) mpern xopis atwaros éveexainorat). Rend. “neither hath the first (covenant) been inaugurated without blood.” There is surely no excuse for inserting testament here, as
488 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Ca. IX.
A. V., since the allusion is clearly to the ratification of a covenant with blood. But further, as this and the verses immediately following are intended to furnish a historical illustration of the statements in vv. 16, 17, we seem forced either to render covenant in those verses, or to assume that the transaction here related was the ratification of a will and testament, or to find our writer guilty of using an illustration which turns on a point entirely different from the matter which he is illustrating. Thus: a testament is of force after men are dead. It has no force so long as the testator is alive. Wherefore, the first covenant was ratified by slaying victims and sprinkling their blood. For the incident see Ex. xxiv. 8. ’Evxawvifev only here and ch. x. 20. LXX, to renew, 1 Sam. xi. 14; 2 Chron. xv. 8; Ps. 1.10: to dedicate, 1K. viii. 63; 1 Mace. iv. 86. Comp. ra éveaina the feast of dedication, J. x. 22. Rend. ovdé neither, as A. V., and not not even, in which case the meaning would be, “not even the first covenant, although its ministries did not perfect the worshipper as touching the conscience,” a thought which would be foreign to the point, which is merely the analogy in the matter of death.