Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

Hebrews IX. 15-23. 513
between chap. viii. and ix.), or they supposed a play upon the word^'
in ver. 16, as if StadrJKr] meant covenant in vers. 15 and 18, and
testament in vers. 16 and 17 ; in other words, they here again imputed
the product of their own fancy to the author. We will
show that the signification testament is throughout the whole passage,
not only not necessary, but even unemtable.
Already, at chap. vii. 22, we found that dta67]Krj, in the sense of
the Heb. rr'-ia, was a lo7ig-estahlished religious idea among the Jews
and Jewish Christians. It is very doubtful, on the other hand,
whether the Hebrews knew anything in general of testaments
(comp. the 1760 of Rau's disput. de testamenti factione Hebraeis
veteribus ignota). The passage Deut. xxi. 16, affords an argument
against the possibility of there having been voluntary dispositions
of inheritances, and the whole Mosaic right of inheritance was, in
its nature and basis, an intestate right of inheritance. The most
that can be said is, that, under the influence of the Eomans, testaments
may have come to be used here and there among the Jews,
but it is still prima facie very improbable that the author should
have selected a thing so foreign and so little known, with which to
compare God's highest act of atonement. Now it is, moreover, a
fact, that in that passage from Jer. xxxi. 31, seq., cited in chap,
viii. 8, seq., which forms the foundation of the whole of this part of
the epistle, dcadrJKr] is the translation of the- Hebrew n-'na. It is also
a fact, that chap. ix. 15 connects closely with the ideas of chap,
viii. ;
and, besides, that in chap. ix. 15, a mediator of the dcad/jKri is
spoken of, while in a testament there cannot, from the nature of
the thing, be a mediator ; there may be such, however, in a covenant
which two separated parties make. From all this, so much,
at least, is evident, that so long as the signification covenant can he
shown to he suitable, ive are not at liberty to depart from it.
And why should this signification not suit in ver. 16 ? " Where
a covenant is, there must, of necessity, be demonstrated the death
of the person making the covenant."
(JP^peadat never signifies existere,
as Schulz and Biihme would have it ; it certainly signifies versari,
for example, Iv rErapayfxevoK; Trpdyixaoc (pepsaOai, to find one's self
in troubled circumstances ; but, when it stands by itself, it never
has the independent substantial signification : to exist. Quite as
little does it ever signify intercedere, as Beza understood it. But
eithei : sermone ferri, fama divulgari, i. e., to be generally known
;
or, what suits still better here, afferi coram judicibus, to be proved,
authenticated.) Therefore : where a SiadrjKT] is, there must the
* The rendering "testament" is given to dtadiJKT] throughout by Chrysostom, Vulg.,
Luther, and the older Lutheran theologians ; that of " covenant" by tlie most of the
Greek fathers, the most of the reformed theologians, especially Grotius, then by Michaelis,
Tholuck, and others ; a change in the signification, or a paronomasia, is supposed
by Bleek, Olshausen, and several of the more recent commentators.
Vol. VI.—33