The Testamentary Character of the New Diatheke in Hebrews 9:15-20

INTRODUCTION

In its dogmatic formulations the Reformed tradition has historically affirmed that God’s covenant of grace has a testamental character as well as a covenantal character. This is evident in section 7.4 of the Westminster Confession: “This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.” Likewise the Reformed theologian Zacharias Ursinus writes in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism: 

In the Scriptures, the terms Covenant and Testament are used in the same sense, for the purpose of explaining more fully and clearly the idea of this Covenant of God; for both of them refer to and express our reconciliation with God, or the mutual agreement between God and men.

Thus for the authors of these confessional standards of the Reformed church, the covenant of grace is a rich doctrine that comprehends the characteristics of two different kinds of transactions: a covenant (ie: a mutual contract or agreement between two parties) and a testament (ie: a will or disposition that bestows goods to an heir.) This dual character of the covenant of grace is important for accurately understanding the covenant theology of the Reformers and their successors.

However, in the twentieth century some Reformed theologians have advocated for a revisionist understanding of the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace that rejects the testamental character of the covenant. The Presbyterian theologian O. Palmer Robertson is one example. He argues in his influential book The Christ of the Covenants that: “It is simply impossible to do justice to the biblical concept of ‘covenant’ and at the same time to introduce an idea of ‘last will and testament.’” The book is devoted to defending a perspective that rejects the testamental character of the covenant of grace. But is Robertson correct that the Reformed confessions were developed with an essentially mistaken understanding of what the Bible teaches about covenant theology? 

One text that is relevant to assessing the biblical warrant for the traditional understanding of the covenant of grace is Hebrews 9:15-20. This passage contains a wealth of explicit didactic revelation directly addressing God’s gracious covenant with sinners through Christ in its New Covenant administration. While not without interpretive challenges, when examined dispassionately it vindicates the traditional and confessional Reformed teaching that the covenant of grace simultaneously possesses the characteristics of a testament and a covenant. 

I. The Meaning of the Word Diatheke

Inquiry into the implications of Hebrews 9:15-20 for covenant theology hinges upon the question of how to correctly interpret the word διαθήκη (“diatheke”) that occurs five times in the pericopae. Accordinging, it is necessary to begin with a survey of the origin, theological import, and NT usage of diatheke.

In the history of the Greek language it seems that the noun diatheke, from the middle form of the verb διατίθεμαι (“diatethemai”), conveyed the broad sense of  “a disposition that someone made for himself.” However, by the inter-testamental period the word became equated with the specific legal usage of a testamentary disposition. It is especially the diatheke’s characteristic of being authored by a single personal agent which distinguishes it from the Greek word συνθηκαι (“suntheke”). A suntheke refers to a legal agreement between two parties.

This sense of a testament whereby one person formally and unilaterally bestows goods to another took on different connotations in different socio-political settings. In the context of Roman law a diatheke was understood to be a changeable and non-effectual arrangement until the death of its author (the testator) rendered it unalterable and effectual. However, in the context of Graeco-Syrian law a diatheke had no such necessary connection with death and thus a testator could choose to render his testament unalterable and effectual while still alive.

The great theological importance of the word diatheke owes to the fact that the translators of the Greek Septuagint used it to render the Hebrew word בְּרִית (“berith”). Berith is used over 280 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and serves as the principal theological paradigm for disclosing Jehovah’s plan for and relationship with Israel in redemptive history (Genesis 6:18, 15:18, 17:2, Exodus 6:4-5, Deuteronomy 5:2-3, Psalm 89:3, Jeremiah 31:31-34, etc.). Some passages strongly suggest that berith is basically synonymous with the greek idea of suntheke (or “covenant”) in the sense of a contractual agreement between parties with mutual promises and obligations (1 Samuel 11:1; Genesis 31:44; Genesis 17:1-2). It has been theorized by some scholars that diatheke was chosen to translate berith instead of suntheke merely out of concern that suntheke’s connotation of equal partnership was unworthy of the profoundly unequal Divine berith with Israel where the Lord is supreme. However, this covenant with Israel certainly was also the means of bestowing an inheritance - most clearly seen in Jehovah’s bestowal of the land of Canaan to Israel (Genesis 15:7, Exodus 3:8, etc.) but also regarding the spiritual and eternal graces of salvation. Thus the Septuagint translators may also have desired that their translation reflect this testamental character of the berith doctrine. John Owen concludes that there is merit in both of these justifications:

The word ריתִבּ ְcould not be more properly rendered by any one word than by διαθήκη. For it being mostly used to express the covenant between God and man, it is of such a nature as cannot properly be termed συνθήκη, which is a covenant or compact upon equal terms of distributive justice between distinct parties; but God's covenant with man is only the way and the declaration of the terms whereby God will dispose and communicate good things unto us, which hath more of the nature of a testament than of a covenant in it.

However, there is a great affinity in the things themselves: for there are covenants which have in them free grants and donations, which are of the nature of a testament; and there are testaments whose force is resolved into some conventions, conditions, and agreements, which they borrow from the nature of covenants. So there is such an affinity between them as one name may be expressive of them both.

Whatever the motivation for the Septuagint translators, expositors and theologians must reckon with the reality that the inspired Apostolic writers follow this practice. The word diatheke is used in the NT Scriptures  specifically to refer to the Divine berith with Israel (Luke 1:72, Acts 3:25, 7:8, Romans 9:8, Galatians 4:24, Ephesians 2:12, Hebrews 8:9) as well as the New Covenant inaugurated after Christ’s first advent.

This somewhat complex historical and Biblical data has led some to despair of resolving persitient disputes about the nature of covenant theology. “It is not a case of six blind men and the elephant, but of a group of learned paleontologists creating different monsters from the fossils of six different species” says Delbert Hillers of the history of covenant theology. In this regard Hebrews 9:15-20 is a very important passage because of the uniquely explicit and illuminating Apostolic revelation it gives concerning the doctrine of the New Diatheke. While not without interpretive challenges, when examined dispassionately it vindicates the traditional and confessional Reformed teaching that the covenant of grace simultaneously possesses the characteristics of a testament and a covenant.

II. Context Within the Book of Hebrews

Of the 33 uses of the word diatheke in the NT Scriptures a majority (17) occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews. That covenant theology should be given lengthier explicit treatment in this book than any other part of the Apostlic writings likely owes to the book’s original audience and intended purpose. As Geerhardos Vos observes in The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews: 

the writer… proposes to compare the old order of things to the new.  To do this, as in all cases where two things are to be compared, a common denominator is necessary. Now the Berith idea was the most suitable common denominator available. Hence the writer considers the new order also as a Berith or Diatheke. 

The preponderance of evidence suggests that the author of Hebrews is written to an audience of ethnically Jewish Christians experiencing persecution for their Christian faith and the temptation to return to anti-Christian Judaism. Accordingly, the author is burdened to demonstrate the utter superiority of Christ and His salvation compared to all the servants, ordinances and blessings which God had previously given His people in redemptive history, to render apostasy from Christianity to Judaism unthinkable.

The exact phrase διαθήκης καινῆς (“New Diatheke”) is used elsewhere in the NT Scriptures (Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6) but in this epistle only in 8:8 (cf. Jeremiah 31:31) and 9:15. The term refers to the relation of the diatheke inaugurated by Christ’s first advent to the τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ (“the first diatheke”) which is referenced in 8:7, 9:1, 2, 15 and 18. The author of Hebrews understands this “first diatheke” to be God’s covenant with Israel in the days of Moses (8:7). The adjective πρώτῃ he uses may denote either “first in order” or “first in importance” but the former is clearly here in view.

Strong’s Greek Lexicon differentiates the adjective καινός from νέος as follows: “νέος denotes the new primarily in reference to time, the young, recent; καινός denotes the new primarily in reference to quality, the fresh, unworn.” Indeed,  καινός is sometimes used to denote something new in the sense of “renewed” (Ephesians 2:15, 2 Peter 3:13). However, καινός can also mean “brand new” no less than νέος (Mark 1:27, 1 John 2:7) and the author later refers to the διαθήκης νέας (Hebrews 12:24) which implies that he uses καινῆς and νέος synonymously in reference to the New Diatheke. Moreover, in 8:13 the author says explicitly that discontinuity is the main point: “In that he saith, A new (καινὴν) covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Therefore, the term evidently denotes a dramatic development in comparison to “the first diatheke.” 

The structure of the epistle to the Hebrews is readily discernible in light of the author’s overarching argument that “Jesus is better.” G. H. Guthrie divides the epistle into seven sections: Better than the Prophets (1:1-3), Better than the Angels (1:4-2:18), Better than Moses and Joshua (3:1-4:13), Better than OT Priesthood (4:14-7:28), Better than the Old Covenant (8:1-10:18), Call to Follow Jesus (10:19-12:29), and Concluding Exhortations (13:1-25). In this reconing, the pericopae under consideration (9:15-20) takes place in the middle of the fifth section (8:1-10:18) where the author especially intends to prove the superiority of the covenant administration that Christ has inaugurated as compared with the former covenant administration. A brief overview of this section is therefore necessary. 

This “Better than the Old Covenant” section (8:1-10:18) follows chapter 7’s demonstration of Christ’s superior high priesthood compared to the Aaronic priesthood. The focus of chapter 8 is closely related to this but there is now a shift towards explaining what Christ’s priesthood has accomplished. Thus 8:1-6 says that the priestly service of Christ in the heavenly tabernacle is manifestly superior to the earthly tabernacle of the Aaronic priests. In v.6 this consideration climaxes with the insight that the covenant of which Christ is mediator is superior to the same degree by virtue of being established on “better promises.” This assertion is then supported in 8:7-13 with a lengthy quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34 concerning God’s promise to make a New Covenant of salvation “with the house of Israel and the House of Judah” (v.8) to replace the Old Covenant He made with them during the Exodus that they subsequently broke. The author of Hebrews insists that Jeremiah’s mention of a New Covenant proves that the Old Covenant to which Judaism clings is not permanent but will certainly vanish. Crucially, the thrust of chapter 8’s argument leaves no doubt that Christ’s first advent is the inauguration of this promised New Covenant. 

In 9:1-10 the author returns to his prior assertion concerning the New Covenant’s superiority in 8:6. He does this by reminding his audience of the structure and ordinances of the Old Covenant tabernacle (vv.1-7) and proceeds to draw three insights from them. First, the Old Covenant was marked by a reminder of the worshiper’s separation from God’s holy presence (v.8). Second, the repeated nature of Old Covenant “gifts and sacrifices” could not make those who offered them perfect “as pertaining to the conscience” (v.9). Third, the ceremonial ordinances of the Old covenant were temporary by design because they were only to be observed “until the time of reformation” (v.10). As Andrea Kostenbrger recognizes, 9:11-14 then sets forth the excellence of Christ’s Priestly sacrifice in stark relief to these defects: “He entered the holy of holies in the more perfect tabernacle once for for all, not once a year; offering his own blood, not representative animals; obtaining eternal redemption, not a temporary covering.”  

All the strands of argument in this section thus serve the author’s overriding concern to demonstrate and extol the superior efficiency of Christ’s priesthood to the Old Diatheke in its sacrificial element. Fittingly, he continues this comparison with his discourse concerning the Old Diatheke’s inferiority in 9:15-20 by setting forth its testamentary character, its relation to the New Diatheke in its testamentary character, and the necessity of death in both Divine economies. As Owen notes:

Wherefore the apostle having discoursed before concerning the [Old] covenant as it prescribed and required obedience, with promises and penalties annexed unto it, he now treats of it as unto the donation and communication of good things by it, with the confirmation of the grant of them by death; in which sense it was a testament, and not a covenant properly so called. And the arguing of the apostle from this word is not only just and reasonable, but without it we could never have rightly understood the typical representation that was made of the death, blood, and sacrifice of Christ, in the confirmation of the new testament 

Careful examination of this passage has the potential to greatly clarify the testamental nature of God’s gracious covenant with sinners which is an important pillar of Biblical covenant theology.

III. Exegetical Analysis

In his commentary of Hebrews, Theodore Robinson makes the following helpful comment about the nature of the New Diatheke in Hebrews 9:15-20:

Rightly to understand this paragraph, it must be realized that, in the Greek of the writer’s day, the same word was used for a ‘covenant’ and for a ‘will’ or ‘testamentary disposition.’ Both senses are involved, with the result that for English readers, who have no common term to apply to the two ideas, it is necessary to be careful to distinguish between them. 

To demonstrate that this is the correct interpretation of Hebrews 9:15-20 two lines of textual evidence in this passage are therefore to be distinguished. First, descriptions of the New Diatheke that imply its covenantal character. Second, descriptions of the New Diatheke that imply its testamentary character. 

1. The Covenantal Character of the New Diatheke

While Hebrews 9:15-20 reveals that the New Diatheke has the character of a testament it also contains evidence that it simultaneously partakes of covenant (ie: a contractual agreement between parties). As such, these covenantal aspects of the passage do not imply its testamental character. Examples include the New Diatheke’s relation to the Mediatorial role of Christ, its essential continuity with the Old Diatheke, and its requirement of blood shedding.

A. The Mediatorial Role of Christ (9:15)

Hebrews 9:15 has considerable thematic continuity with the preceding argument of the epistle. However, the phrase διὰ τοῦτο (“because of this”) seems not to be referring back to 9:11-14 but instead conveys a forward reference. In this understanding there is close interrelation between it and the the ὅπως (“in order that”) which introduces the second half of the verse so that as Paul Ellingsworth says “the meaning is: ‘The purpose of a new covenant is that those who have been called may receive the eternal blessings.’”  This transaction is inextricably bound up with Christ’s role as covenant Mediator.

The noun μεσίτης (“mediator”) used in 9:15 with reference to Christ’s role in the New Diatheke is explicable only if this Diatheke possesses a covenantal character. The word is used once in the Septuagint (Job 9:33) and in the New Testament is used in Galation 3:19 and 1 Timothy 2:5. It refers to “a go-between” who “intervenes to restore peace between two parties, especially as it fulfills a compact or ratifies a covenant.” Ellingsworth is mistaken when he asserts:

In Hebrews, as elsewhere in the the Bible, the covenant, whether old or new, is not a mutual contract, or negotiation, for which an arbitrator may be needed; it is a unilateral gift from God… Christ’s mediation is thought of in Hebrews as similarly unilateral. 

Such a denial that God’s covenant with sinners has the characteristics of a contractual agreement (a position equivalent to saying that it is not a covenant at all) is without merit and ought to be rejected. As John Owen observes, Paul’s usage of the term in Galation 3 does not leave room for this error:

[U]nto the office of a mediator it is required that there be different persons concerned in the covenant, and that by their own wills; as it must be in every compact, of what sort soever. So saith our apostle, "A mediator is not of one, but God is one," Gal. 3:20; that is, if there were none but God concerned in this matter, as it is in an absolute promise or sovereign precept, there would be no need of, no place for a mediator, such a mediator as Christ is. Wherefore our consent in and unto the covenant is required in the very notion of a mediator. 

Paul’s interpretation of Exodus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 5:27-28 in Galatians 3 (namely, that Moses had a special role in mediating between God and the people on Mount Sinai) is likely also in the background of Hebrews’ use of the term. However, the author of Hebrews clearly intends much more than a Moses-like prophetic role by Christ’s mediation because in this chapter the title is applied to Him in the context of His priestly atonement. 

This mediatorial role therefore refers to one who reconciles parties at variance according to the terms of a covenant (which is a bilateral agreement). These conceptual categories are foriegn to the meaning of a mere testament (which is a unilateral gift).

B. Essential Continuity with the Old Covenant (9:15)

William Lane helpfully explains the difficulty in rightly interpreting the preposition ἐπὶ in 9:15: 

The prep ἐπὶ with the dative ordinarily carries the nuance ‘on the basis of,’ ‘in accordance with,’ ‘under’ (cf. 8:6; 9:10...). Alternatively, it may be understood in a temporal sense, ‘in the days,’ ‘at the time of.’ 

If understood in the former sense (“on the basis of”) then the First (Mosaic) Diatheke is here regarded as having brought about the παραβάσεων (“transgressions”). If that is the intended sense this would be similar to Paul’s presentation of the Old Diatheke as “the ministration of condemnation” insofar as it declared the need for total satisfaction of God’s moral law (2 Corinthians 3:9). 

However, the second interpretation (“in the days of”) ought to be embraced instead because (unlike 2 Corinthians 3 or Galations 3-4) it is the gracious character of the Old Diatheke that is emphasized in Hebrews 9. The Old Diatheke sacrifices “sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh” (9:13); it is “the law” that “purged;” it was a demonstration that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (9:22). The Old Diatheke, however temporary and incomplete, was a  means of graciously applying sanctification, purging and remission to sinners. V.15 should therefore be understood as clarifying that the Mediator’s death was revealed and applied to believers in the days of the Old Diatheke through its ordinances. Arthur Pink rightly notes the importance of this: 

Christ atoned for the sins of those who were to believe as much as those who had, before He became incarnate, looked in faith to Him… [the blood of Christ] was just as efficacious in taking away the transgressions of believers before it was actually shed, as it is of cleansing believers today. 

Since there is one salvation administered under both the Old and the New Diatheke, it is important to recognize the latter as existing in essential continuity with the former. Thus Reformed theology rightly concludes from this principle that there exists an overarching covenant of grace of which Old and New Diatheke are historic administrations

This interpretation holds true even if one were to exegetically limit the group of οἱ κεκλημένοι (“the called ones”) to Christians after the first advent of Christ and not including OT believers. NT believers are certainly in view in Hebrews 3:1 when the author addresses his audience as κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι (“partakers of the heavenly calling”) which indicates that this is a term for the sovereign work of God initiating saving grace through His Word. However, the same root is used to refer to the call by God of the OT believer Abraham (Hebrews 11:8). It is therefore plausible that this term is inclusive of both covenant administrations to further reinforce this theme of continuity.

While important, this fact of continuity with the Old Diatheke does not itself imply the testamental character of New Diatheke. Since the Old Diatheke certainly had the characteristics of a covenant this could in principle merely serve to argue that the New Diatheke is likewise a covenantal agreement.

C. The Significance of Blood Shedding (9:18-20)

In vv.18-20 the author gives a historical survey of the First (Mosaic) Diatheke’s inauguration in Exodus 24. These verses (together with vv.21-22) have posed challenges to expositors. At first glance there appear to be discrepancies between this historical survey and the account given in Exodus. Theodore Robinson comes close to ascribing error to the inspired author of Hebrews when he writes:

Goats, water, scarlet wool, hyssop—these are not mentioned. Nor is the book sprinkled; it is merely read in the hearing of the people. In the nature of the case the similar treatment accorded to the tent and all the utensils of worship has nothing to do with the original ceremonial, for these things were not yet in existence.

However, Owen is correct to strongly reject “the least appearance of contradiction unto any thing that is recorded by Moses.” His reasoning is as follows.

First, regarding the mention of τῶν τράγων (“the goats”) in 9:18, Owen notes that Exodus 24:5 mentions both peace offerings and burnt offerings. The use of goats in the case of peace offerings was sometimes permitted (Leviticus 3:12) and in the case of burnt offerings it was normative (Leviticus 1:10). While Moses’ account mentions oxen in connection with the peace offering he does not say what animals the burnt offerings were. There is therefore no logical barrier to harmonizing the two accounts.

Second, regarding the sprinkling μετὰ ὕδατος καὶ ἐρίου κοκκίνου καὶ ὑσσώπου (“with water and scarlet wool and hyssop”) Owen observes that the ceremonial law made provision for two lawful kinds of sprinkling according to the size of object purified. A small object like an individual person received a small amount of blood sprinkled with a finger. But sprinkling a large object like a house required a large amount of blood which “was done by mixing running water with the blood, and then sprinkling it with scarlet wool and hyssop” (Leviticus 14:50-52). The amount of blood required for this ceremony would have necessitated the second method.

Third, regarding τὸν βιβλίον (“the book”) being the object of sprinkled, Owen gives a careful survey of the events recorded concerning what Moses did with the book of the covenant in Exodus 24:3-7. He argues “it is evident that the book which he had written was laid on the altar, though it be not expressed” prior to the sprinkling of the altar. In this way the “sacred record” of the covenant was sprinkled prior to being taken up and read. 

Fourth, regarding the sprinkling of the tabernacle and vessels of the ministry Owen observes that the words Καὶ… δὲ (“and then”) in v. 21 designate a clear transition from the role of blood in the covenant institution to the role of blood in the covenant economy. Referring to Leviticus 16:14-20 (which records the yearly cleansing of the tabernacle and its ordinances with blood) he further concludes concerning Hebrews 9: “Moses is here said to do what he appointed should be done.” In other words, he regularly cleansed them - not personally but by his legislation.

In v.18 the preposition χωρὶς (“apart from” or “without”) and the singular noun αἵματος (“blood”) as its object constitute a prepositional phrase that modifies the perfect indicative verb ἐνκεκαίνισται (“has been inaugurated”) with the negative adverb οὐδὲ (“neither”). 

This blood refers not merely to the physical substance or its religious significance as the seat of life (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 2:14) but particularly blood spilled by injury in the context of violent death. The conjunction Ὅθεν is used here to note an inference as thus can be translated “wherefore.” As Owen notes:

[I]t intimates a confirmation of a general rule by especial instances. He had before laid it down as a general maxim, that a testament was to be confirmed by death. For thereupon the first testament was confirmed with the blood of sacrifices shed in their death. 

O. Palmer Robertson is therefore correct in saying “the strong connection between verses 17 and 18 must be considered.” There is indeed a common principle of bloodshed operative in both the New Diatheke and the Old. In the case of the New Diatheke the violent bloodshed of Christ’s death was necessary (vv.16-18). So also violent death was a prominent part of the Old Diatheke. 

In v.19 there is clarification of this role of bloodshed: it has particular significance in regards to the relationship of the people of God to the law of God. It is profitable to compare the account in Exodus 24:6-8 to Hebrews 9:19-20:

And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” (Exodus 24:6-8 KJV)

For of every commandment according to the law having been spoken by Moses to all the people, having taken the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, both the book itself and all the people he sprinkled, saying, “this [is] the blood of the Diatheke, which God commanded unto you.” (Hebrews 9:19-20, my translation)

What the author of Hebrews calls πάσης ἐντολῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον (“of every commandment according to the law”) and τὸ βιβλίον (“the book”) have the same referent: the words spoken by Jehovah on Mount Sinai consisting of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and the case laws (Exodus 21-23). For the author of Hebrews, the blood-soaked inauguration of the First Diatheke centers on the people swearing as contracting parties to obey these commands according to the terms of the Lord’s covenant agreement. 

Some contend that this emphasis on obedience and law keeping proves that the Mosaic covenant is here reckoned as a so-called “republication of the covenant of works” and not an administration of the covenant of grace. Those with this perspective contend that, for the author to the Hebrews, the slaying of the calves and goats and sprinkling of their blood represent a curse of malediction. Their function in the Mosaic covenant was therefore to terrify the people by visually representing the dreadful punishment which would befall the people if they failed to live up to their covenant responsibilities. Richard Phillips seems to defend this position:

As Hebrews 9:21-22 go on to observe, just about everything was sprinkled by blood. Death was the penalty for breaking the covenant. Ray Stedman writes of this blood, “It was meant to impress on them that sin cannot be set aside, even by a loving God, without a death occurring. His judicial sentence, ‘the soul who sins is the one who will die’ (Eze. 18:4), must be carried out.” The point was that the mark of death was upon this covenant and all its ordinances and stipulations.  The blood of the covenant showed the penalty for breaking the covenant…. 

While he rejects the traditional language Reformed doctrines such as the “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace” in favor of his own novel reformulations, O. Palmer Robertson defends a similar understanding of the ceremonial blood shedding in his comments on Hebrews 9:

Essential to the inauguration both of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants was the symbolic representation of the death of the covenant maker. The long history of God’s terminal judgments on Israel finds prophetic interpretation in the light of God’s execution of the death curse on covenant breakers. Death and covenant clearly relate. They relate concretely in two ways. First, the death of the covenant-maker receives symbolic representation at the time of the inauguration of the covenant. The covenant-making procedure is not complete without this pledge-to-death aspect. Secondly, the death of the covenant-violator receives historical actualization when covenantal judgment is executed. Once a transgression of covenantal commitment has occurred, death is inevitable.

Such misinterpretations badly distort the message of Hebrews 9. The author of Hebrews gives no hint that he understands the shed blood of the Mosaic sacrifices as representing a curse of malediction for covenant breakers. On the contrary, v.22 makes clear that the message the blood shedding was the exact opposite: “without shedding of blood is no remission.” As John Calvin correctly notes, this means that the significance of this blood shedding is Christ and His mediatorial work to be received by faith. This is consistent with Owen’s argument that the statement recorded in v.20 Τοῦτο τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης (“this [is] the blood of the Diatheke”) spoken by Moses is clear “sacramental” language. In other words, according to Divine appointment, the shed blood of bulls and goats functioned as a visible sign of a spiritual reality. 

In this way, the bloody sacrifices functioned as a covental means of grace whereby the people of Israel were sanctified unto the Lord as “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exodus 19:6) as remission for sins by faith enabled their grateful worship and obedience.

2. The Testamental Character of the New Diatheke 

As has been demonstrated, Hebrews 9:15-20 reveals that the New Diatheke has the character of a covenant. However, this should not distract from the reality that the author’s main emphasis is its testamentary character as a unilateral disposition or free gift of grace. Vos writes regarding the use of the word diatheke:

In 9:16,17 it is plainly given the meaning of testament, referring to the death of the person who has made it. This refers first of all, of course, to Christ. But then the author extends the idea also to the Old Testament, saying that even in the old Diatheke there was the symbol of death. 

[H]ere the word must mean testament; because of the reference to the death of the testator. The Diatheke does not avail so long as the testator liveth. An additional reason for this rendering, although it is not sufficient in itself, is found in the idea of inheritance. Third, we have here also the legal terminology… We think it impossible that any competent exegete should translate Diatheke in this context otherwise than as testament. 

These three considerations are therefore worthy of examination: the significance of inheritance, the use of legal language,.and the significance of death.
A. The Significance of Inheritance (9:15)

The thelogically charged phrase οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας (“the promise of the eternal inheritance”) in v. 15 is to be understood in reference to human practices whereby one in possession of property or wealth may apportion his goods to a chosen heir (Matthew 21:38). However, it refers preeminently to the portion appointed by God to His people (Acts 7:5, Hebrews 11:8) which is a prominent theme in redemptive history. 

Owen argues this is an “eternal” inheritance is intended as a contrast to the typological inheritance under the Old Testament:

As unto the nature of it, it is declared in the adjunct mentioned; it is "eternal." And it is so called in opposition unto the inheritance which by virtue of the first testament God granted unto the Israelites in the land of Canaan. That was an inheritance, and was conveyed by a promise. And when God threatened to deprive them of that land, he said he would "disinherit them," Num. 14:12. And this inheritance consisted not only in the land itself, but principally in the privileges of holy worship and relation unto God which they enjoyed therein, Rom. 9:4, 5. But yet all things that belonged unto it were in themselves carnal and temporary, and only types of good things to come. In opposition hereunto God provided an "eternal inheritance." 

In this understanding the author of Hebrews is using OT categories to refer ultimately to the anti-typical inheritance of salvation, eternal life, and heaven procured by Christ for believers. Like the teaching of Galatians 3:18, the presupposition is that both the typical and antitypical inheritance were contained in God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15. This promise is therefore an important principle uniting both the Old and New Diatheke in God’s salvific purposes and an important evidence of the testamentary character of the covenant of grace.

In contrast, O. Palmer Robertson contends that this principle of inheritance has no implications for the testamentary character of the New Diatheke. He writes: 

The reference in v. 15 to an “inheritance” should not tempt the interpreter to revert to the “testamentary” concept. For inheritance also played a most vital role in the Old Testament framework. The inheritance of life equalled the blessing of the covenant. It was the exact opposite of the curse-option. Covenantal inheritance found its typological representation in the possession of the land of Canaan, symbolizing the life of peace and security provided by God for his people. The possession of this “inheritance” was not dependant on death, but on covenant faithfulness.

Robertson’s theological system so controls his interpretation of Hebrews 9:15 that the covenant faithfulness of the sinner determines the bestowal of eternal inheritance or eternal curse. He thus concludes that is incompatible with a unilateral testamentary disposition. However, this interpretation is clearly foriegn to the central argument of Hebrews 9 that Christ’s bloody sacrifice is the effectual cause of the blessings of the Old and New Diatheke, the substance of which is the eternal inheritance. 

It should be acknowledged that taken in isolation this principle of inheritance is not sufficient to prove that the New Diatheke possesses the character of a testament. However, when examined in connection with the teaching of vv.16-17 the connection is clear.

B. The Use of Legal Language (9:16-17)

In describing the New Diatheke, Hebrews 9:16-17 utilizes legal language that strongly suggests that the analogy of a last will and testament is what the author intends to communicate. The following translation highlights four important words worthy of notice:

 ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου. διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μή ποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος, (Hebrews 9:16-17, Greek Text)

For where [there is] a diatheke, [it is] necessary to announce [the] death of the testator. For [a] diatheke [is] in force after death, since at the time when the testator is alive it is not valid, (Hebrews 9:16-17, my translation)

First, the present infinitive φέρεσθαι (from φέρω) means “to announce” or “to bring by announcing” or “to bring something something to the proper notice.” Second, the adjective βεβαία (from βέβαιος) means “stable” or “firm” with the metaphorical import of “inviolable” or “of force” (cf. Hebrews 2:2). Third, the present indicative active verb ἰσχύει (from ἰσχύω) means “to be of force” or “to have validity.” Fourth, the articular aorist participle διαθέμενος (from διατίθεμαι) means “the one having disposed a will” or “testator.” As Vos notes, this confluence of terms of a legal nature are explicable only if they refer to a diatheke as the term was used in the sphere of Roman law: a last will and testament. 

O. Palmer Robertson protests that:

[T]he ineffective character of an argument based on verbal pun argues against the meaning ‘testament.’ Certainly some force of persuasion would be lost if the reader were asked to move from the meaning ‘covenant’ to the meaning ‘testament’ and back to the meaning ‘covenant’ within the space of four verses.

However, this is nothing but a question begging fallacy. It would indeed be unpersuasive if the author were to utilize the concept of testament in this place for no reason other than the fact that the Biblical word for covenant and the legal word for testament happen to be the same. But smuggling this conclusion into his premise does not make it so. To the contrary, the fact that an inspired author uses this argument proves that it is no verbal pun but a true revelation of the testamentary characteristics of the New Diatheke.

C. The Significance of Death (9:16-17)

Perhaps the strongest evidence for the fact that vv.16-17 presents the New Diatheke as a testament and not a covenant is the significance of death in these verses. These verses teach that θάνατον (“death”) is required of τοῦ διαθεμένου (“the one having made the diatheke”) before the diatheke is in force. Conversely, a diatheke where the one who makes it yet ζῇ (“lives”) is not in force.

This is self-evidently false if the principle is imposed upon covenants in the human sphere. The covenant between David and Jonathon (1 Samuel 20:16) or Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31:44) entailed no death of either covenanting party. The principle likewise is not true of the Divine covenants with men because God obviously never dies in order to covenant with men like Noah (Genesis 6:18) or David (Psalm 89:3). 

However, this presents no such difficulty if understood in reference to last wills and testaments. Phillip Hughes concurs that this principle would have been immediately understandable to the original audience:

In the case of a last will and testament… the death of the testator is invariably required before the terms of before the terms of his disposition can become operative. Hence our author’s appeal to the universally acknowledged rule that where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established, because a will is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive, but takes effect only at death.

Moreover, as Vos notes, properly understood this teaching very capably serves the central 

argument of Hebrews 9: the superior efficacy of Christ’s priestly sacrifice.

Christ is the testator. But is the teaching of the Epistle that Christ is now inoperative? No; just the opposite; His activity was not affected by his death. It was precisely through dying that Christ acted, that He became a priest forever. We may, then find two ideas in this passage: (1) the death of Christ; and (2) through death the thing became ipso facto operative.

It would therefore seem undeniable that the New Diatheke is a New Testament in as much as we receive the eternal inheritance of salvation by virtue of Christ the Testator’s death. When contextualized within the overall argument of Hebrews 9:15-20 this necessitates an understanding of the New Diatheke that includes covenantal and testamentary characteristics.   

CONCLUSION:

Obviously, this is a more nuanced interpretation than limiting the meaning of the New Diatheke to either a mere covenant or a mere testament. It necessitates that God’s gracious covenant with sinners through Christ is a somewhat complex doctrine. Yet this reflects the historic Reformed tradition’s understanding of this passage and covenant theology as a whole. As the Reformed scholastic theologian Francis Turretin notes: 

It must indeed be acknowledged that the testamentary notion is principally urged here by the apostle (Heb. 9:15), that the necessity of the death and satisfaction of Christ (as the testator) may be more clearly set forth and the efficacy of grace (to which all things must be ascribed in the covenant of grace) more strongly demonstrated. But this is not to be understood exclusive of the federal [ie:covenantal] relation which demands faith and obedience on our part. 

Recognizing this dual character of the New Diatheke in Hebrews 9 is important for establishing a covenant theology that consistently affirms both human responsibility (according to prescribed covenant conditions such as faith and obedience) as well as Divine monergism (whereby even these conditions are themselves granted to the sinner as part of the gracious testamentary gift of complete salvation purchased by Christ’s death). To guard this Scriptural truth it is important to reject interpretations that wrongly claim that only covenantal characteristics are present in 9:15-20. 

- Benjamin Hicks

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. John Owen. Grand Rapids MI:

 WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949.

Ellingworth,  Paul. Commentary on Hebrews. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1993.

Guthrie, G. H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. New York, NY: Brill, 1994. 

Hillers, Delbert. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins 

University Press, 1969.

Hughes, Phillip. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. 

Eerdmans Publ. Co, 1977.

Köstenberger, Andreas. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, An Introduction to the New 

Testament. 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016.

Lane, William. World Bible Commentary: Hebrews 9-13. Columbia: Nelson Reference and

 Electronic, 1991. 

Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1924.

Myers, Stephen  “The Mosaic Covenant,” Systematic Theology 328: Covenant Theology. Class 

lecture, Purtian Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, MI, April 2020. 

Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Gould. Grand Rapids, MI: 

Baker Book House, 1980.

Pink, Arthur. An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House, 1974.

Phillips, Richard. Hebrews: Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R 

Publishing, 2006. 

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Pittsburgh, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980.

Robinson, Theodore. The Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. James Moffatt. New York; London: Harper 

and Brothers Publishers, 1933. 

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. “The Westminster Larger Catechism,” Confessional 

Standards, Accessed March 21, 2020. https://www.opc.org/lc.html

Turretin, Francis. The Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George 

Musgrave Giger. P&R Publishing, 1997.

Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism. 

London: Forgotten Books.

Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh, EH: The Banner of 

Truth Trust, 2017.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Pittsburgh, NJ: P&R Publishing, 

1977.