Charles Ellicott Commentary Hebrews 9:16

"For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it." — Hebrews 9:16 (ASV)

Testament.—As has already been pointed out, the greatest difference of opinion has existed regarding the meaning of the Greek word diathēkē in this passage (See Note on Hebrews 7:22). It will be seen at once that the interpretation of this verse and the next entirely depends on that one question. If “testament” is the correct meaning of the Greek word, the general sense of the verses is well given in the Authorized Version. A few commentators even agree with that version in carrying back the idea of testament into Hebrews 9:15, although in the other two places in which the word is joined with “Mediator” (Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 12:24) they adhere to the ordinary rendering, “covenant.” By most, however, it is held that a new thought is introduced in the present verse.

The writer, it is urged, having spoken of a promise of an inheritance (Hebrews 9:15), and a promise that cannot be made valid unless death takes place, makes use of the illustration which a second (and very common) meaning of the leading word affords. Though a covenant has previously been in his thoughts, he adds interest and force to his argument by drawing on the analogy of a testament or will. It is further urged that this procedure will not seem unnatural if we reflect that the diathēkē between God and man is never exactly expressed by covenant, since it is not of the nature of a mutual compact between equals .

The position is chiefly defended by two arguments: (1)Hebrews 9:16, being a general maxim, gives no intelligible sense regarding a covenant, but is easy and natural as applied to a will. (2) A Greek word used in Hebrews 9:17, where the literal translation is “over (the) dead,” cannot be used of sacrifices of slain animals, but of men only.

This, we believe, is a fair statement of the case on one side. It may be fully acknowledged that if Hebrews 9:16-17 stood alone, and if they concerned Gentile rather than Jewish usage, the case would be very strong. As it is, we are compelled to believe that the difficulties which this interpretation brings with it are beyond comparison more serious than those it removes.

1. There is no doubt that in the overwhelming majority of New Testament passages the meaning covenant must be assigned. By many high authorities these verses are considered to contain the only exception.

2. In the LXX the word is extremely common, both for the covenants of God and for compacts between man and man (See Note on Hebrews 7:22).

3. The application of diathēkē in this Epistle rests on the basis of the Old Testament usage, the key passage being Jeremiah 31:31-34, quoted at length in Hebrews 8:0. With that quotation this passage is linked by the association of diathēkē with Mediator in Hebrews 9:15 and Hebrews 8:6, and with “the first” in Hebrews 9:15 and in Hebrews 8:13; Hebrews 9:1.

4. In the verses which follow this passage the meaning covenant must certainly return, as a comparison of Hebrews 9:20 with the verse of Exodus which it quotes (Exodus 24:8) will show.

5. It is true that the idea of “death” has appeared in Hebrews 9:15, but it is the death of a sin-offering; and there is no natural or easy transition of thought from an expiatory death to the death of a testator. And yet the words which introduce Hebrews 9:16; Hebrews 9:18 (“For” and “Wherefore”) show that we are following the course of an argument.

6. Though to us Hebrews 9:16 may present a very familiar thought, we must not forget that to Jews dispositions by will were almost altogether unknown. Were it granted that a writer might for illustration make use of a second meaning which a word he is using might happen to bear, this liberty would only be taken if by that means familiar associations could be reached, and the argument or exhortation could be thus effectively conveyed. In an Epistle steeped in Jewish thought such a transition as that suggested would be inexplicable.

Other considerations of some weight could be added. However, these seem sufficient to prove that, even if the difficulties of interpretation prove serious, we must not try to remove them by wavering in our rendering of diathēkē in these verses.

We believe, therefore, that the true translation of Hebrews 9:16-17 must be the following:—For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be brought in the death of the covenanter. For a covenant is in force when there has been death (literally, over the dead); for does it ever have any strength while the covenanter lives?

In Hebrews 9:15 we have seen the twofold reference of the death of Jesus, to the past and to the future.

As High Priest He has offered Himself as a sin-offering to cleanse the conscience from dead works. The same offering is also regarded as a ransom redeeming from the penalty of past transgressions. And, still by means of His death, He has, as Mediator, established a new covenant.

We are reminded at once of the words of Jesus Himself: This cup is the new covenant in My blood (1 Corinthians 11:25).

It is this very thought that the writer proceeds to develop: a covenant cannot be established without death—it cannot exist at all. We need not pause to prove that among Jews, Greeks, and Romans alike, covenants were confirmed by sacrifice; we have the earliest example of this usage in Genesis 15:0.

In such sacrifices, again, the death of the one who makes the covenant is “brought in,” or assumed. There will not, perhaps, be much difficulty in accepting this as a maxim.

The conflict of opinion really begins when we ask in what manner this is assumed. The usual answer is that the death of victims is emblematic of the punishment which the contracting parties called down upon themselves if they should break their compact. It may have been so among the Greeks and Romans, though this is doubtful.

1. Among the Jews, however, the analogy of their general sacrificial system, in which the victim represented the offerer, makes such an explanation very improbable. As to the precise idea implied in this representation, it is not easy to speak with certainty. It has been defined in two opposite ways.

   In the death of the victim, each contracting party may be supposed to die either: regarding the future, in respect of any power of altering the compact (the covenant will be as safe from violation through change of intention as if the covenanter were removed by death); or regarding the past, meaning each is now dead to the former state of enmity.

   It is not necessary for our argument to decide such a question as this. The only material points are that a covenant must be established over sacrifices, and that in such a sacrifice, “the death of the one who made the covenant” must in some manner be “brought in” or assumed.

There remains only the application to the particular covenant spoken of here. If this is taken as made between God and man, the sacrificial death of Jesus in man’s place ratified the covenant forever, the former state of separation being brought to an end in “the reconciliation” of the gospel.

The peculiar character of Hebrews 9:15, however (see above), seems rather to suggest that, as Jesus is set forth as High Priest and sacrifice, so He is both the Author of the covenant and the sacrifice that gives it validity.

In this case, we see represented in His sacrifice the death of each “covenanter.” (The transition from “Mediator” to Giver of the covenant is not greater than that which the other interpretation requires—a transition from a mediator of a testament to a testator.)

There are minor points relating to details in the Greek that cannot be dealt with here. Of the two arguments quoted above, the former has, we hope, been fully met.

Though (it may be said in passing) it would be easier to give up Hebrews 9:16 as a general maxim, and to regard it as applying only to a covenant between God and sinful man, than to divorce the whole passage from the context by changing “covenant” into “will.”

One point of interest must not be omitted: there are coincidences of expression with Psalms 1:5 that make it very probable that that Psalm, memorable in the development of the teaching of the Old Testament, was distinctly in the writer’s mind. This comparison is also useful in explaining some expressions in the original of these two verses.