# Covenant / Testament



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 3, 2005)

We talk alot about CT, but I'm not sure we have made a distinction on the words we use - 

How would you define the difference between the meaning of the words "covenant" and "testament"?


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 3, 2005)

A Testament requires the death of a testator and an inheritance is then given. 

A covenant is in tact when both parties are alive, as long as the conditions of the covenant do not require death.

Robertson has a good section discussing the difference between testament and covenant and it's usage in Hebrews (although I disagree with his redefinition of the term covenant).

Any thoughts on the WCF on this point?

Chapter VII Of God's Covenant with Man

Section IV. 

"This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in 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."


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 3, 2005)

Robert Shaw

" A covenant is generally defined to be an agreement between two parties, on
certain terms. In every covenant there must be two parties, and consequently
two parts"”a conditionary and a promissory; the one to be performed by the
one party, and the other to be fulfilled by the other party. If either of the
parties be fallible, a penalty is often added; but this is not essential to a
covenant."

"In the authorised English version of the New Testament, the covenant of
grace is frequently designated a testament; and it is generally admitted, that
the original word signifies both a covenant and a testament. There is, at least,
one passage in which it is most properly rendered testament, namely, Heb. ix.
16, 17. Some learned critics, indeed, have strenuously contended against the
use of that term even in this passage; but the great majority allow that the
common translation is unexceptionable."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 3, 2005)

Covenant/testament can be the same thing, but the definitions must also be distinguished based ont he context. Hebrews, for example, uses both in different ways and in same ways depending on context.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2005)

I think an etymological study shows that from a basic Greek meaning (going back to calssical times) there was development in usage that split noticably when the LXX transaltors were looking for a useful word to translate "berith" (Heb. = covenant). From this translation point, further development in Greek leads to use of "diatheke" for "testament", while meanwhile in the religious circle of the Jewish synagogue, the term becomes solidly identifed with the "berith" concept.

I think this parallel development was either not understood or not sufficiently appreciated in earlier translations. However, recent translations have shifted strongly to translating diatheke as "covenant", with few exceptions. I agree with Robertson that with the possible exception of once in Galatians, ALL renderings in the NT should be uniformly translated as "covenant", thus giving the _religious_ usage of the word its due emphasis.

What we call the Old/NewTestament should really be translated "Old Covenant/New Covenant".


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 3, 2005)

> What we call the Old/NewTestament should really be translated "Old Covenant/New Covenant".



I would agree. Let's start a lobby to get all the Bible manufacturers to change the division designations in our Bible!


----------

