# Confused by intro of Christ of the Covenants



## Polanus1561 (Jan 4, 2017)

It is my belief that Christ instituted the New Covenant by declaring that in his testament (last will) His blood be shed for all and he takes the death and shedding of blood on our behalf.


Robertson says the last supper was entirely covenantal and not testamental?

Confused by the language. Perhaps on another note his belief that Heb 9:15 relates to covenant and not testament causes confusion?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 4, 2017)

John Yap said:


> It is my belief that Christ instituted the New Covenant by declaring that in his testament (last will) His blood be shed for all and he takes the death and shedding of blood on our behalf.
> 
> 
> Robertson says the last supper was entirely covenantal and not testamental?
> ...


 Are they not referencing the same thing?


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2017)

John Yap said:


> Perhaps on another note his belief that Heb 9:15 relates to covenant and not testament causes confusion?



I think this is right. Obscuring the testamentary nature of the new covenant has created much confusion. Instead of a new covenant teachers began to speak of a renewed covenant, and this in itself led to some extreme notions because it meant circumstantials under the old testament could be pressed as continuing under the new testament unless specifically abrogated.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 4, 2017)

_Testamentary-_speak is the older emphasis in relation to the _diatheke_ (Gk) word group. OPR seems to subscribe to a more modern view, which takes all (or nearly all) NT uses of the word, and maps them to the Heb. concept-word _berit,_ thus rendering "covenant."

The LXX made original use of diatheke (a word with a general sense of _unilateral disposition, _as opposed to syntheke; and which had or did come to be used in a "will-and-testament" sense by Gk speakers). So when the NT was written, the term had a couple hundred years use in Jewish-religious terms; and it was used colloquially in a more "secular" sense.

So, it becomes a matter of interpretation how that word should be understood in any given context. As early as the ASV1901, Bible translators were rendering more instances of diatheke in the NT as "covenant," nearly eclipsing the older term "testament." In the last 100yrs, one sees some pull back on that tendency, at least in some popular translations. But "covenant" now predominates.

There are significant theological insights susceptible to loss, if the _testamentary _idea is ignored. A robust definition of "covenant" inclusive of a inheritance-principle can serve to guard against that loss; but it must be made explicit (and I'm not sure think OPR is thinking down that avenue).

OT covenant according to its nature (see Gen.15) is enacted in view of or over dead things, which represent the death of the participants, if they break covenant. Supposing a covenant lasted until natural death of one party: this death (like any other) technically ends the covenant--just like a marriage-covenant ends with the death of a spouse.

But, Heb.9:17 seems to invoke a contrary principle, that the diatheke in view has "no power" while the "testator" lives. This would be perfectly in accord with standard usage in common currency (non-religious) relating to will-and-testament. That passage can be interpreted differently than it traditionally has been. But, in any case the death of the testator/covenanter *must be* (v16) reckoned with, and the implications of that death for inheritance.

Is it possible for an ancient covenant or its blessings to be "kept in effect," or inherited by ones who would like to prosper under the provisions made possible by the original party, now dead? It is argued by some that this is indeed envisioned within the Hebrew concept, depending on the covenant stipulations. In which case, a _testamentary _notion may be retained, being embedded in the covenant to begin with. But in that case I think it must be explicitly acknowledged.

I'll just add that Rev.Winzer by his observations--not just above, but also in the past--has influenced me back toward _testamentary _notions (and a more critical, but not hostile, evaluation of OPR) because of the importance of the concept to historic covenant theology . We should note that OPR shies away from eternal Covenant of Redemption language (a key piece of the historic CT position).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 4, 2017)

An important note about "most" current books on Covenant Theology. Professors and teachers in schools are often required to write articles, books and such as part of their "professorship." Generally, a professor needs to "make a mark for the school" or for his "career" in some way when writing something "new." Current books that deal with covenant theology almost always depart from a confessional stance because they need to write something that hasn't been written before. OPR definite does this in his work in order to substantiate, "a bond in blood sovereignly administered." (which is itself a departure from Westminster's definition, as well as Witsius, Strong, Blake and Rutherford.)

In my opinion, I would start with reading standard authors, (i.e. historically proven authors, or those that specifically follow the WCF), and then that way when you get to OPR and others, you can easily see where they deviate.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## KeithW (Jan 4, 2017)

Sorry, this will not be based on what someone else wrote about covenants but on using the Bible and references materials or the meanings of words.

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word for covenant only has one possible definition - covenant. When the New Testament quotes on Old Testament passage such as quoting the "new covenant" in Jer. 31:31, the Greek word used has two possible meanings: covenant, or testament. The idea that testament was meant was introduced in the Latin Vulgate of 400 AD in both the Old Testament and New Testament. And translations of the New Testament ever since keep using testament.

Covenant-sacrifice: Some covenants are put into effect, or ratified, by a covenant sacrifice. You can tell in the Old Testament which covenants are ratified by a covenant sacrifice by looking at the underlying Hebrew word for "make" (in make a covenant) to see if it means "cut". The Abrahamic covenant is a cut covenant. The Mosaic covenant is a cut covenant. The new covenant is a cut covenant.

Hebrews 9 is a special case. Take a look at an interlinear Bible to see how many extra words translators have to use to make the idea of testament and testator work. On the other hand here is how this passage is put in "Young's Literal Translation":

Hebrews 9:15-22 And because of this, of a new covenant he is mediator, that, death having come, for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those called may receive the promise of the age-during inheritance, for where a covenant [is], the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, for a covenant over dead victims [is] stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth, whence not even the first apart from blood hath been initiated, for every command having been spoken, according to law, by Moses, to all the people, having taken the blood of the calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, he both the book itself and all the people did sprinkle, saying, `This [is] the blood of the covenant that God enjoined unto you,' and both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the service with blood in like manner he did sprinkle, and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come.​
But the most important thing about a covenant is to look at who made it, who did the originator make it with, what promises are made, and are their any conditions on those promise. New covenant promises can be found in Jer. 31:31-34 and Eze. 36:22-32.

I have several reference materials which follow this convention. But I have only found two pastors who do.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 5, 2017)

διαθέμενος (vv16 &17) is naturally translated "covenanter" or "testator," not "covenant-victim," as in YLT, above. Which is only to point out the obvious: that a "literal" translation is not necessarily free of translation "gloss" in order to privilege a certain reading. The second use of the word "victim" (v17) renders "dead" (nominal use of the adjective) along with the insertion of a (helpful!) noun. More bias?

_Perhaps _the covenanter's death which in view is "symbolic," or maybe not. But this "literal" translation has pre-chosen the meaning for the reader. Simply put, it is a challenging passage, and the idea that all that ever should have been necessary was to "let the Greek speak for itself" mocks the translational and exegetical labors of many ages.


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2017)

KeithW said:


> Take a look at an interlinear Bible to see how many extra words translators have to use to make the idea of testament and testator work. On the other hand here is how this passage is put in "Young's Literal Translation":



I'm not sure what good an interlinear will serve in the place of a proper understanding of the Greek text. The only additional ideas in the AV are relative pronouns and the verb to be (which are implicit in the Greek and regularly added in English to fill out the sense), together with the addition of the word "testament" to fill out the meaning of "first." Young's Literal Translation simply makes up words. "Covenant-victim," I think I recall correctly, is part of Westcott's strange theory that the blood is the life rather than the manifest death of the victim. At any rate, it has no basis in the Greek, which could only refer to one making the covenant if indeed "covenant" were the intended meaning.

Interpreters of the "sacrificial covenant" motif tend to regard the covenant as being ratified by the sacrificial death of a victim, but this is only symbolic because an animal takes the covenanter's place, and it is only in the event of breaking the covenant that the death of the covenanter would become necessary. This misses the point of application to Christ as the one who is said to ratify the covenant by His own actual death. For these reasons I consider the "sacrificial covenant" theory to fail to properly attain to the argument of this section of the exhortation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> διαθέμενος (vv16 &17) is naturally translated "covenanter" or "testator," not "covenant-victim," as in YLT, above.


I do not understand the word "naturally" here.

_EDIT:_ Remove forward reference to extra posts.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2017)

Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Hebrews 9". _Barnes' Notes on the New Testament_.

*Verse 15.*

_Of the new testament_. Not _testament_--for a _testament_, or will, needs no mediator; but of the _new covenant_, or the new arrangement or disposition of things under which he proposes to pardon and save the guilty. See Barnes "Hebrews 9:16,17". [1]

*Verse 16.*

_The death of the testator._ [2]

(3.) The word ~diatiyhmi~ _diatithemi_--properly means, _to place apart, to set in order, to arrange_. It is rendered appoint in Luke 22:29; _made and make_, with reference to a covenant, Acts 3:25; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in the passage before us. The idea of _placing, laying, disposing, arranging_, etc, enters into the word--as to place wares or merchandize for sale, to arrange a contract, etc. See _Passow_. The fair meaning of the word here may be, whatever goes to arrange, dispose, or settle the covenant, or to make the covenant secure and firm. If the reference be to a compact, it cannot relate to one of the contracting parties, because the death of neither is necessary to confirm it. But it may refer to that which was well known as an established opinion, that a covenant with God was ratified only by a sacrifice. Still, it must be admitted that this use of the word is not elsewhere found, and the only material question is, whether it is to be presumed that the apostle would employ a word in a single instance, in a peculiar signification, where the connexion would not render it difficult to be understood. This _must_ be admitted, that he might, whichever view is taken of the meaning of this passage; for, on the supposition that he refers here to a _will_, it is conceded that he uses the word in a sense which does not once occur elsewhere either in the Old Testament or the New. It seems to me, therefore, that the word here may, without impropriety, be regarded as referring to _the victim that was slain in order to ratify a covenant with God_; and that the meaning is, that such a covenant was not regarded as confirmed until the victim was slain. It may be added that the authority of Michaelis, Macknight, Doddridge, Bloomfield, and Dr. J.P. Wilson, is a proof that such an interpretation cannot be a very serious departure from the proper use of a Greek word. [3]​

Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Hebrews 9". _Barnes' Notes on the New Testament_.
Google Books. August 1, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=009>
Barnes.


Barnes.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2017)

*"Commentary on Matthew 26". The Adam Clarke Commentary*


*Verse 27*

The following literal translation and paraphrase do not exceed its meaning:-

_For_ THIS _is_ THAT _blood of mine_ which was pointed out by all the sacrifices under the Jewish law, and particularly by the shedding and sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb. THAT _blood_ of the sacrifice slain for the ratification _of the new covenant_. THE _blood_ ready to be _poured out for the multitudes_, the whole Gentile world as well as the Jews, _for the taking away of sins; sin_, whether original or actual, in all its _power_ and _guilt_, in all its internal _energy_ and _pollution_. [1]

*Verse 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament*

This is the reading both here and in St. Mark; but St. Luke and St. Paul say, _This cup is the New Testament in my blood_. This passage has been strangely mistaken: by _New Testament_, many understand nothing more than the _book_ commonly known by this name, containing the _four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles_, apostolical _Epistles_, and book of the _Revelation_; and they think that the _cup of the New Testament_ means no more than merely that cup which the book called the New Testament enjoins in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As this is the case, it is highly necessary that this term should be explained. The original, Η Καινη Διαθηκη, which we translate, _The New Testament_, and which is the general title of all the contents of the book already described, simply means, _the new_ COVENANT. _Covenant_, from _con, together_, and _venio, I come_, signifies an agreement, contract, or compact, between two parties, by which both are mutually bound to do certain things, on certain conditions and penalties. It answers to the Hebrew ברית _berith_, which often signifies, not only the _covenant_ or _agreement_, but also the sacrifice which was slain on the occasion, by the blood of which the covenant was ratified; and the contracting parties professed to subject themselves to such a death as that of the victim, in case of violating their engagements. [2]

Our blessed Saviour is evidently called the Διαθηκη¸ ברית, _berith_, or covenant sacrifice, Isaiah 42:6; 49:8; Zechariah 9:11. And to those Scriptures he appears to allude, as in them the Lord promises to _give him for a covenant_ (sacrifice) _to the Gentiles_, and to _send forth, by the blood of this covenant_ (victim) _the prisoners out of the pit_. The passages in the sacred writings which allude to this grand sacrificial and atoning act are almost innumerable. See the _Preface_ to Matthew. [3]

*"Commentary on Hebrews 9". The Adam Clarke Commentary*


*Verse 15*

_He is the Mediator of the new testament_

There was no proper reason why our translators should render διαθηκη by _testament_ here, when in almost every other case they render it _covenant_, which is its proper ecclesiastical meaning, as answering to the Hebrew ברית berith, which see largely explained, Genesis 15:10, and in other places of the Pentateuch.

Very few persons are satisfied with the translation of the following verses to the _20_th, particularly the _16_th and _17_th; at all events the word _covenant_ must be retained. _He_-Jesus Christ, is _Mediator_; the μεσιτης, or _mediator_, was the person who witnessed the contract made between the two contracting parties, slew the victim, and sprinkled each with its blood.

_Of the new testament_

The _new contract_ betwixt God and the whole human race, by _Christ Jesus_ the Mediator, distinguished here from the _old covenant_ between God and the _Israelites_, in which _Moses_ was the mediator. [4]

*Verse 16.* _For where a testament is _

A learned and judicious friend furnishes me with the following translation of this and the _17_th verse:-
"For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed _victim_ should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead _victims_, since it is not at all valid while the appointed _victim_ is alive."

He observes, "There is no word signifying _testator_, or _men_, in the original. Διαθεμενος‚ is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as διατηκη, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it _the disposed_ or _appointed_ victim, alluding to the manner of _disposing_ or _setting apart_ the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes. I refer to your own notes on Genesis 6:18, and ; 15:10.-J. C."

Mr. Wakefield has translated the passage nearly in the same way.

"For where a covenant _is_, there must be necessarily introduced _the_ death of that which establisheth the covenant; because a covenant _is_ confirmed over dead things, and is of no force at all whilst that which establisheth the covenant is alive." This is undoubtedly the meaning of this passage; and we should endeavour to forget that _testament_ and _testator_ were ever introduced, as they totally change the apostle's meaning. See the observations at the end of this chapter.

*Verse 18.* _Whereupon _

_Wherefore_, as a victim was required for the ratification of every covenant, the first covenant made between God and the Hebrews, by the mediation of Moses, was _not dedicated_, εγκεκαινισται, renewed or solemnized, _without blood_- without the death of a victim, and the aspersion of its blood. [5]




Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 26". _The Adam Clarke Commentary_. 1832.
StudyLight.Org. August 5, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=026>
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 26".


Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 26".


Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Hebrews 9". _The Adam Clarke Commentary_. 1832.
StudyLight.Org. August 5, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=009>


Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Hebrews 9".


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2017)

*"COVENANT, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT", The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia*


COVENANT, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Diatheke, was the word chosen by the Septuagint translators to render the Hebrew berith, and it appears thus nearly 300 times in the Greek Old Testament in the sense of covenant, while suntheke and entolai are each used once only. The choice of this word seems to have been occasioned by a recognition that the covenant which God makes with men is not fully mutual as would be implied in suntheke, the Greek word commonly used for covenant (although not a New Testament word), while at the same time the rarity of wills among the Jews made the common sense of diatheke relatively unfamiliar. The Apocryphal writers also frequently use the same word in the same sense and no other.

In the New Testament diatheke is used some thirty times in a way which makes it plain that its translation must be "covenant." In Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:15-17 it is held by many that the sense of covenant must be set aside in favor of will or testament. But in the former passage it can be taken in the sense of a disposition of affairs or arrangement made by God, a conception in substantial harmony with its regular New Testament use and with the sense of berith. In the passage in Hebrews the interpretation is more difficult, but as it is acknowledged on all hands that the passage loses all argumentative force if the meaning testament is accepted, it seems best to retain the meaning covenant if possible. To do this it is only necessary to hold that the death spoken of is the death of the animal sometimes, if not, indeed, commonly slain in connection with the making of a covenant, and that in the mind of the author this death symbolized the death of the contracting parties so far at least as to pledge them that thereafter in the matter involved they would no more change their minds than can the dead. If this view is taken, this passage falls in line with the otherwise invariable use of the word diatheke by Jewish Hellenists. [2]


Estes, David Foster. "COVENANT, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT", _The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_.
StudyLight.Org. August 2, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/>


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2017)

*"On διαθήκη in Heb. ix. 16, 17". Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis [1]*



(1) The invariable and extremely frequent use of the word _διαθήκη_ in the Old Testament is _covenant_. In the New Testament, also, this is admittedly its usual sense, and, unless this passage forms an exception, may well be considered its uniform meaning. (2) The notion of a testamentary disposition of property was unfamiliar to the Hebrews, to whom this Epistle was addressed, and is very unlikely to have here been suddenly introduced in the most important part of an argument to the Hebrews. (3) The argument from the immediate context is very strong. In the preceding verse, _covenant_ is admittedly the more natural sense, and in the following verses _διαθήκη_ refers to the solemn covenant described in Ex. xxiv. (4) The death of a victim has been immediately assocated with the idea of a covenant in ver. 15, and is again in vers. 18-20; and in the latter its blood seems to be considered necessary to the force of the covenant. It was natural, therefore, that it should be also in view in the intervening verses. (5) The whole passage is closely connected with the record of a covenant between God and man, solemnly ratified by the blood of victims, as recorded in Ex. xxiv. 5-8. (6) The mention of Christ as both the maker and the ratifying victim of the covenant is quite in accordance with the context, the plural in reference to the victim being used as in ver. 23. (7) The whole thought of the Epistle regards the new dispensation, the especial subject of these verses, as a covenant in fulfilment of the prophecy in Jer. xxxi. 31-34, where it is described under this term. And, (8) still further, the entire Scriptural view of both the old and the new dispensations, which it is the object of this Epistle to compare, is that they were covenants between God and man.

In view of all these reasons, and particularly in view of the combined force of them taken together, it seems to me that the true rendering of _διαθήκη_ here, as everywhere else in Scripture, must be "covenant". That there are some difficulties in this interpretation is not denied; but they are not greater than are often encountered in the interpretation of difficult passages, and are wholly overborne by the weight of the argument in its favor.

Gardiner, Frederic. "On διαθήκη in Heb. ix. 16, 17". _Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_ Vol. 5, No. 1/2 (Jun. - Dec., 1885), pp. 8-19.
JSTOR. July 26, 2011.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268624>


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2017)

*Theology of the Hebrew Christians*
Regarding Hebrews 9:16,17:



The English version has involved this passage in hopeless obscurity by introducing the idea of a testament and a testator. It occurs in the middle of a continuous argument in which the new _covenant_ prophesied by Jeremiah is compared with the old Mosaic _covenant_; and the same word _διαθήκη_ recurs ten times during its course. The arbitrary variation of rendering in this particular passage completely interrupts the chain of reasoning: it fails also to explain satisfactorily the allusions to death which the passage contains: for the Greek word _διαθήκη_ could not convey to the ear of an Israelite the same reference to death as the word _testament_ does to an English reader, being invariably used in Scripture to mean a _covenant_. The idea of a testament moreover made valid by the death of a testator is entirely foreign to the subject, and can hardly be reconciled with the previous or subsequent context. The two verses may be literally translated as follows: "For where a covenant is made, it is a necessity that death be offered of him that maketh the covenant: for a covenant is valid _only_ if men be dead; for is he that maketh it strong at the time (tote) when he liveth?" The point here insisted on is the necessity for the surrender of the old life of the flesh as a condition essential to any valid covenant with God, because incapable of fulfilling God's will by reason of its weakness. In the case of the old covenant this death was formal and typical only: but the new covenant demands a real death of the natural man in those who enter into covenant with God, in order that the divine life of the Spirit may be imparted to them. [1]

*"Hebrews 9", The Epistle to the Hebrews*


16, 17. For a covenant requires the pledge of life to its fulfilment; therefore it is sealed in blood of victims; the forfeit of the transgressor's life in default of due observance is essential to its solemnity.

16. _διαθήκη_] The rendering _testament_ has been so generally adopted in this passage, that it becomes necessary to defend that of _covenant_ at some length. _Διαθήκη_ and _διατἰθεσθυι_ were undoubtedly used in two distinct senses,

(1) a disposition of property by will, _Testament_;

(2) a compact by mutual agreement, or conditional appointment for another, _Covenant_; and the former is in classical Greek the more ordinary meaning. But the Lxx on the contrary use them persistently in the one sense of covenant. God's successive covenants with Noah and the patriarchs, with Moses and Joshua, with David and the prophets, are all expressed by this word: the covenant of circumcision and of the Law, the ark of the covenant, the tables of the covenant, the book of the covenant, the salt of the covenant, have made the term familiar to every reader of the Old Testament. Nor is its use limited to God's covenants, which may be said to be of the nature of appointments rather than proper covenants; it is regularly employed in speaking of men's covenants: e.g. the covenants of Abimelech with Isaac, of Laban with Jacob, of Joshua with the Gibeonites, of David with Jonathan, with Abner and the elders of Israel, of Ahab with Benhadad, of Joash and Josiah with their people, of Edom with Israel, of a husband and wife, are all so designated. Nowhere has the meaning _testament_ been discovered in the Old Testament, so far as I am aware. In the Greek Testament we meet with _διαθήκη_ repeatedly in reference to the divine covenant. The rendering _testament_ has been unfortunately attached by the Authorised Version and by the Prayerbook to the solemn words of sacramental consecration, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood'; but the occasion on which the words were spoken is conclusive of their proper sense in that passage: they were spoken to Jews, who could attach but one meaning to a _διαθήκη ἐν αἵματι_, viz. that fastened on it by Exod. xxiv., a covenant sealed in blood: our Lord spoke not of his own testament, but of the Father's covenant in his blood. Once only in the Greek Testament (Gal. iii. 15) is reference made to a human _διαθήκη_, and there the sense demands the rendering _covenant_; the unalterable nature of God's covenanted promise is there illustrated by comparison with a man's _διαθήκη_; which, when once confirmed, is placed beyond the maker's power to alter: this is as false of a testament, as it is true of a covenant. The verb _διατἰθεσθαι_ occurs but once (Luke xxii. 29) apart from _διαθήκη_; it there means not a testament, but a divine appointment. In this epistle the word occurs ten times within two chapters of continuous argument, and the chain of argument imperatively demands uniformity of rendering. It has been supposed that the allusions to death require the variation here; but it is altogether a mistake that the Greek word _διαθήκη_, as used in the Old or New Testament, contained any reference to death, as the word _testament_ does in modern English. This section of the Epistle deals largely with the subject of the two _διαθῆκαι_, but to both these the idea of a _testament_, a _testator_, still more the death of the _testator_, is wholly foreign: both were covenants, both were sealed in blood, but not the blood of him who made them, for he is the eternal Father, the great 'I AM'. [2]

17. _διαθήκη γὰρ ὲπὶ νεκροἳς βεβαία_] sc. _γίγνεται_. Compare the expression _ὲγένετο βεβαία _ in ii. 2. From an enunciation of the binding principle of covenants this verse turns to the form adopted in their ratification. A covenant is ratified upon dead victims; as in the instances just cited has been seen to be the practice both of Jews and heathens. The interpretation of _ὲπὶ νεκροἳς _ as expressive of the validity given to a testament by the death of a testator is altogether at variance with Greek usage; which must have employed _ὲπὶ τοἳς ἀποθανοὓσι _ or some equivalent words rather than _ὲπὶ νεκροἳς _ to denote this. [3]


Rendall, Frederic. _Theology of the Hebrew Christians_. 1886. pp.159,160.
Google Books. August 5, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=Ot4OAAAAIAAJ>
Rendall, Frederic. _The Epistle to the Hebrews_. 1883. pp.82-84
Google Books. August 2, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=tDMNAAAAYAAJ>


Rendall. _The Epistle to the Hebrews_. pp.84,85

I have a bunch more but I'll stop there...


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2017)

KeithW said:


> It is rendered appoint in Luke 22:29; _made and make_, with reference to a covenant, Acts 3:25; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16.



This susbstantiates the criticism I made in my previous post. If the word is to be applied in the distinct context of a "covenant" it must refer to covenant-making or covenant-disposing. There is no exegetical basis for introducing a metonymy whereby the victim which is symbolically used to ratify the covenant is put in the place of the covenant ratification. "Covenant-victim" is a made-up word. It does not derive from the exegesis of the text, but has sprung up out of the fruitful imagination of expositors who are apt at putting together the pieces of two different puzzles.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2017)

MW said:


> This susbstantiates the criticism I made in my previous post. If the word is to be applied in the distinct context of a "covenant" it must refer to covenant-making or covenant-disposing. There is no exegetical basis for introducing a metonymy whereby the victim which is symbolically used to ratify the covenant is put in the place of the covenant ratification. "Covenant-victim" is a made-up word. It does not derive from the exegesis of the text, but has sprung up out of the fruitful imagination of expositors who are apt at putting together the pieces of two different puzzles.


I am willing to remove my posts if you believe them to be Scriptural wrong. Should I?

_EDIT: _I have quotes from reference materials (several commentaries, journal articles, dictionaries) which do not agree with your viewpoint, and some which do. But I think I have hijacked this thread so I will go back and remove my extra posts.


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2017)

KeithW said:


> I am willing to remove my posts if you believe them to be Scriptural wrong. Should I?



I am not a moderator. Perhaps take it up with one of them.

As a counter-point to the commentators you have quoted, and to show that it is not as simple as quoting a commentator when the commentators are divided among themselves, consider what the JFB commentary has to say.

On verse 16,



> the expression is not "there must be the death of both parties making the covenant," but singular, "of Him who made (aorist, past time; not 'of Him making') the testament." Also, it is "death," not "sacrifice" or "slaying." Plainly, the death is supposed to be past (aorist, "made"); and the fact of the death is brought (Greek) before court to give effect to the will. These requisites of a will, or testament, concur here: (1) a testator; (2) heirs; (3) goods; (4) the death of the testator; (5) the fact of the death brought forward in court. In Mt 26:28 two other requisites appear: witnesses, the disciples; and a seal, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the sign of His blood wherewith the testament is primarily sealed. It is true the heir is ordinarily the successor of him who dies and so ceases to have the possession. But in this case Christ comes to life again, and is Himself (including all that He hath), in the power of His now endless life, His people's inheritance; in His being Heir (Heb 1:2), they are heirs.



On verse 20:



> testament—(See on Heb 9:16, 17). The Greek "διαθήκη" means both "testament" and "covenant": the term "covenant" better suits the old dispensation, though the idea testament is included, for the old was one in its typical relation to the new dispensation, to which the term "testament" is better suited. Christ has sealed the testament with His blood, of which the Lord's Supper is the sacramental sign. The testator was represented by the animals slain in the old dispensation. In both dispensations the inheritance was bequeathed: in the new by One who has come in person and died; in the old by the same one, only typically and ceremonially present. See Alford's excellent Note.



Alford's "excellent note" is as follows:



> The word διαθήκη has the double sense of a covenant and a testament. Both these senses may be applied to both διαθῆκαι: to the latter more properly belongs the testamentary sense, but to the former also in as far as it was typical of and foreshadowed the other. In the latter, all is clear. Christ, the heir of all things, has bequeathed to us His people an everlasting inheritance; has died, sealing the testament with His blood. In the former all this is formally, though inadequately represented. The κληρονομία, faintly shadowed forth by temporal possessions, had yet a recognized blessed meaning far beyond those possessions: the testator was imperfectly, but still was formally represented by the animals slain in sacrifice: _there_ was a death, _there_ was a sprinkling of and sealing by blood: and surely it requires no more stretch of concession to acknowledge the victim in sacrifice to represent the Lamb of God in his sonship and his heritorship, than it does in his innocence and propitiatory power. The one idea is just as poorly and inadequately set forth by it as the other. But in both cases there is an inheritance, and in both it is the same. In both it is bequeathed: in the latter actually by One who has come in person and died: in the former, only typically, by the same One ceremonially present. So that, if our ὅθεν in Hebrews 9:18 were to be filled up, it would be, ‘Whence, i. e. since the former covenant also had its testamentary side, and thus was analogous to as well as typical of the latter.’
> 
> The charge brought against the Writer on account of his transition of meaning in διαθήκη, is equally without foundation. He is thinking in Greek. In Greek, διαθήκη has these two meanings: not divided off from one another by any such line of demarcation as when expressed by two separate words, but both lying under one and the same word. What more common, or more ordinarily accepted, than to educe out of some one word its various shades of meaning, and argue on each separately as regards the matter in hand? Take the very word ‘Testament’ as an example. In our common parlance it now means a _book_: the _Old Testament_, the book of the former covenant, the _New Testament_, the book of the latter. But we do not therefore sink the other and deeper meaning; nay we rather insist on it, that it may not become lost in that other and more familiar one. I cannot see how the Writer’s method of procedure here differs essentially from this.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 5, 2017)

Mod: To avoid confusion I undeleted the posts since they are being referred to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2017)

I will return specifically to the topic in the original post.



John Yap said:


> It is my belief that Christ instituted the New Covenant by declaring that in his testament (last will) His blood be shed for all and he takes the death and shedding of blood on our behalf.
> 
> Robertson says the last supper was entirely covenantal and not testamental?
> 
> Confused by the language. Perhaps on another note his belief that Heb 9:15 relates to covenant and not testament causes confusion?


You are correct to find there is confusion with the language. One camp believes that since the definition of the Greek word can be _covenant_ or _testament_ that both are meant. John Calvin is a prime example of this. See his _Commentaries On The Epistle Of Paul The Apostle To The Hebrews._ There is another camp which follows the idea that when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, the Old Testament understanding must first be understood. Some of this can be seen in the references I posted. I thought I was posting too many but I guess not.

Here is my personal opinion. When Jesus said this cup is My blood of the new covenant, regardless of whether the word _testament_ or _covenant_ is used, I believe it is important to know what are the promises of that new covenant. The new covenant promises are contained in both Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:22-32.

I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts (Jer 31:33)
I will be their God, and they shall be my people (Jer 31:33)
they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them (Jer 31:34)
I will forgive their iniquity (Jer 31:34)
I will remember their sin no more (Jer 31:34)
I will take you from among the heathen (Ezek 36:24)
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean (Ezek 36:25)
from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you (Ezek 36:25)
A new heart also will I give you (Ezek 36:26)
a new spirit will I put within you (Ezek 36:26)
I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26)
I will put my spirit within you (Ezek 36:27)
I will cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them] (Ezek 36:27)
ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers (Ezek 36:28)
ye shall be my people, and I will be your God (Ezek 36:28)
I will also save you from all your uncleannesses (Ezek 36:29)
I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you. And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen (Ezek 36:29,30)
you shall remember your own evil ways, and your doings that [were] not good (Ezek 36:31)
you shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations (Ezek 36:31)
And it is also important to understand why God said He chose to make promises through covenants -- because He is faithful to keep His promises.

Deut. 7:9 Know therefore that *the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant* and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;

Deut. 7:12 Then it shall come about, because you listen to these judgments and keep and do them, that *the LORD your God will keep with you His covenant* and His lovingkindness which He swore to your forefathers.

1 Kings 8:23 He said, "*O LORD, the God of Israel*, there is no God like You in heaven above or on earth beneath, *keeping covenant* and showing lovingkindness to Your servants who walk before You with all their heart,

2 Chron. 6:14 He said, "*O LORD, the God of Israel*, there is no god like You in heaven or on earth, *keeping covenant* and showing lovingkindness to Your servants who walk before You with all their heart;

Neh. 1:5 I said, "I beseech You, *O LORD God of heaven*, the great and awesome God, *who preserves the covenant* and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments,

Neh. 9:32 Now therefore, *our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who keeps covenant* and lovingkindness, Do not let all the hardship seem insignificant before You, Which has come upon us, our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, our fathers and on all Your people, From the days of the kings of Assyria to this day.

Dan. 9:4 I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed and said, "Alas, *O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant* and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments,​


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 6, 2017)

I agree with MW that simply piling up opinions is of limited usefulness. As for the first offering, it should be noted that A.Barnes was an unrepentant and exonerated *heretic*, whose acquittals at trial led to the mainline Presbyterian schism of 1837. details here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-history-of-the-trial-of-albert-barnes.36289/#post-451582

Old School Presbyterians maintained classic Reformed doctrine; New School Presbyterianism was the home of the first liberals.

The fact he was a popular read only proves the power of rhetoric, something akin to the popularity of a D.Wilson today. The ability (as it was said of Barnes) to make popularly accessible the latest critical-theories of pertaining to Scripture (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Barnes_(theologian) ) generally does not commend him to those of a classic, rather than a progressive, mind.

Adam Clarke was an Arminian Methodist of an even earlier time. My point is not to disparage any and all interest in what such a man (or men) ever offered the church by way of interpretation and exegesis. But to ask: why are these opinions privileged, while the studied opinions of those revered exegetes of our deepest tradition set by, with scant weight accorded them. As if they were valued chiefly for being beholden to their prejudices?

I said _"διαθέμενος (vv16 &17) is *naturally* translated "covenanter" or "testator," _because I have access to and am conversant with the lexicons, grammar, and translations of NT Greek.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MW (Jan 6, 2017)

Rev. Buchanan has pointed to the fact that theological bias has an influence on a commentator's choices. This is noticeably the case on a subject related to "covenant theology," which inevitably forms itself into an ordered system as part of the interpreter's mindset. There is no theologically neutral exegesis in this area. One's understanding of the flow of redemptive history, the relationship between the testaments, the significance of the coming of Christ, and the nature of His saving work, are all tied up with the subject.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 7, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I agree with MW that simply piling up opinions is of limited usefulness.


I agree with you. Shortly after posting those quotations I realized they were not helping answer the original post so I deleted them. 

Thank you for the information on those commentators.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 11, 2017)

MW said:


> Rev. Buchanan has pointed to the fact that theological bias has an influence on a commentator's choices. This is noticeably the case on a subject related to "covenant theology," which inevitably forms itself into an ordered system as part of the interpreter's mindset. There is no theologically neutral exegesis in this area. One's understanding of the flow of redemptive history, the relationship between the testaments, the significance of the coming of Christ, and the nature of His saving work, are all tied up with the subject.


I agree with this idea. Not just commentators, but all of us bring in our own theology when we read any Scriptures. "Covenant theology" seems to be more prone to this than most areas of theology. From what I've read on the subject, authors, even the most reformed, define the concept of a covenant in different ways, even to the point of contradicting at least one of the covenants God makes with men.

Since the new covenant was originally described in the Old Testament I found it useful to read every occurrence of the word covenant in the Old Testament to learn how God in His Word describes the concept, especially those places where God made or established covenants with men.

Here are some questions we can ask the Scriptures when we look at the covenants God makes with men:

Who does God make the covenant with?
What are the promises of the covenant?
Are there conditions to the promises?
Is this covenant put into effect simply because God said so or by the death and blood of a _covenant-sacrifice_?
Practical applications of covenants:

Does God keep His promises?
When God makes covenant promises, do we believe those promises?
Do we believe that God is both faithful to keep His promises and has the ability to keep His promises? (see Rom. 4)



John Yap said:


> Confused by the language.


I also find the language most men use when they talk about "covenant theology" to be confusing. I find the language the Bible uses about "covenants" much clearer.


----------



## MW (Jan 11, 2017)

With whom does God make the covenant? With Jesus Christ as the second Adam and with all the elect in Him.

What are the promises of the covenant? The comprehensive promise is, I will be their God and they will be my people. Included in that comprehensive promise is the promise of wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, culminating in the blessings of eternal life in the glorious kingdom of God.

Are there conditions to the promises? As visibly administered there are conditions stipulated; but the covenant also promises grace to the elect to fulfil those conditions, which makes them more of the nature of blessed connections than conditions.

Is this covenant put into effect simply because God said so or by the death and blood of a _covenant-sacrifice_? God promises and man believes by grace. Besides the covenant in itself God has been pleased to bequeath the blessings by way of a testamentary arrangement in order to make the inheritance sure to the heirs. This he has accomplished by means of sacrifice. The Old Testament sacrifices were imperfect as they looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ; but now a perfect sacrifice has been offered, once, by Jesus Christ our great high priest, and this sacrifice ratifies the new testament in His blood.

Does God keep His promises? Always, as also His threatenings.

When God makes covenant promises, do we believe those promises? Yes, and are thereby personally instated in the covenant.

Do we believe that God is both faithful to keep His promises and has the ability to keep His promises? That is fundamental to the exercise of faith.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 12, 2017)

what are some CT books that i can read alongside O Palmer Robertson? I do want to take a look back at Reymond / Berkhof/ Brakel STs which covers CT


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 12, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I agree with MW that simply piling up opinions is of limited usefulness. As for the first offering, it should be noted that A.Barnes was an unrepentant and exonerated *heretic*, whose acquittals at trial led to the mainline Presbyterian schism of 1837. details here:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-history-of-the-trial-of-albert-barnes.36289/#post-451582
> 
> Old School Presbyterians maintained classic Reformed doctrine; New School Presbyterianism was the home of the first liberals.
> ...


 Is there an important disctintion to be made between use of either terms Covenant or Testament, since both main roughly same thing don't they?
Trying to understand why one is favored over the other?


----------



## KeithW (Jan 12, 2017)

Rev. Winzer gives a good example of answering those questions from one's theology, from...



MW said:


> One's understanding of the flow of redemptive history, the relationship between the testaments, the significance of the coming of Christ, and the nature of His saving work, are all tied up with the subject.



In contrast we can also look at specific covenants...



KeithW said:


> ... in the Old Testament to learn how God in His Word describes the concept, especially those places where God made or established covenants with men.



Take for example the covenant God made with Noah. How would those questions be answered when referring to the text of this covenant?

*The Text
*

Genesis 9:8-17 8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 "Now behold, I Myself do establish My *covenant* with you, and with your descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 "I establish My *covenant* with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 God said, "This is the sign of the *covenant* which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a *covenant* between Me and the earth. 14 "It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My *covenant*, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting *covenant* between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17 And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the *covenant* which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."​
*Features of this Covenant
*
Who did God make this covenant with?

(v.9) with Noah and his descendants
(v.10) "with every living creature" that was with Noah on the ark
(v.10) with "every beast of the earth"
(v.12) with "all successive generations"
(v.17) with "all flesh that is on the earth"
What are the promises of this covenant?

(v.11) "all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood"
(v.11) "neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth"
(v.15) "never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh"
What is the length of this covenant?

(v.11) "never again"
(v.12) "all successive generations"
(v.15) "never again"
(v.16) it is an "everlasting covenant"
Was this covenant put into effect by a covenant-sacrifice or simply because God spoke it?

simply because God spoke it
Did God place any conditions on this covenant?

no

*Practical Application of this Covenant
*
When God made the promise, "never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life", do we believe that God is faithful to keep that promise?


----------



## KeithW (Jan 12, 2017)

MW said:


> Is this covenant put into effect simply because God said so or by the death and blood of a covenant-sacrifice? God promises and man believes by grace. Besides the covenant in itself God has been pleased to bequeath the blessings by way of a testamentary arrangement in order to make the inheritance sure to the heirs. This he has accomplished by means of sacrifice. The Old Testament sacrifices were imperfect as they looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ; but now a perfect sacrifice has been offered, once, by Jesus Christ our great high priest, and this sacrifice ratifies the new testament in His blood.



This is for others who might not be aware of this. We typically only think of Old Testament sacrifices as those contained within the Mosaic covenant, which is also called the law. But some covenants God made with men are ratified by sacrifice.

Psa. 50:5 (KJV) Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.​
The word here rendered as "made" is literally "cut" in Hebrew. Examples of "cut" covenants would be those God made with Abraham and Moses. 

Gen. 15:18 (KJV) In the same day the LORD *made* a covenant with Abram, saying...​
Exo. 24:5-8 (KJV) And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. 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.​
What about the new covenant?

Jer. 31:31 (KJV) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will *make* a new covenant...​
In this new covenant the word here rendered as "make" is that same Hebrew word which literally means "cut". So the new covenant is ratified by sacrifice. In the New Testament we learn this sacrifice is the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus fulfills all of the Old Covenant sacrifice types..

PS: Thank you to the folks in this thread for the opportunity to share some of the basic concepts of covenants.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Is there an important disctintion to be made between use of either terms Covenant or Testament, since both main roughly same thing don't they?
> Trying to understand why one is favored over the other?


David, go back a few posts in the thread:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...f-Christ-of-the-covenants.91794/#post-1122747
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...f-Christ-of-the-covenants.91794/#post-1122793
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...f-Christ-of-the-covenants.91794/#post-1122794
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...f-Christ-of-the-covenants.91794/#post-1122879


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 12, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David, go back a few posts in the thread:
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...f-Christ-of-the-covenants.91794/#post-1122747
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...f-Christ-of-the-covenants.91794/#post-1122793
> ...


 Thank you, as this is a very interesting subject for me, and trying to understand this concept better...


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 12, 2017)

Thank you, as this is a concept I am trying to understand more fully from the Reformed perspective!


----------



## MW (Jan 12, 2017)

John Yap said:


> what are some CT books that i can read alongside O Palmer Robertson? I do want to take a look back at Reymond / Berkhof/ Brakel STs which covers CT



The work of a Brakel is helpful. He has a chapter on the covenant of grace in which he shows the difference between covenant and testament; and he also has an appendix which traces the covenant of grace through the history of redemption. Witsius' Economy of the Covenants has the same historical treatment. So both can be easily used in connection with O Palmer Robertson's work, who treats of the covenants in chronological order.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW (Jan 12, 2017)

KeithW said:


> Rev. Winzer gives a good example of answering those questions from one's theology, from...
> 
> In contrast we can also look at specific covenants...



What do you mean to say here? Are you suggesting I am answering the questions from my system of theology but by contrast you are looking at the text of Scripture? By speaking of "specific covenants" and isolating the covenant with Noah you are expressing a theological system of your own. The words used in Genesis 6-9 indicate the existence of God's covenant before it was established with Noah and his seed. This means the covenant with Noah should not be isolated on its own. The previous chapter (Genesis 5) draws a clear line of redemptive-historical continuity from Adam to Noah.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 15, 2017)

MW said:


> What do you mean to say here? Are you suggesting I am answering the questions from my system of theology but by contrast you are looking at the text of Scripture? By speaking of "specific covenants" and isolating the covenant with Noah you are expressing a theological system of your own. The words used in Genesis 6-9 indicate the existence of God's covenant before it was established with Noah and his seed. This means the covenant with Noah should not be isolated on its own. The previous chapter (Genesis 5) draws a clear line of redemptive-historical continuity from Adam to Noah.



With respect to your question and statement, I am trying to demonstrate that the concept of covenants, and the content of them, can be found directly in the text of Scripture -- where God makes or establishes His covenants. Scripture directly describes the concept and content by example. There is a beauty in the simplicity of the concept of covenants, and in why God chose this concept to make His promises with men.

The original post of this thread was not about existence of covenants or content of covenants but about confusing terminology. Understanding the terminology of covenants must start with understanding the concept, which is mostly foreign to the Gentile mind, especially mine. To understand the concept of covenants as used in the Bible, covenant theology sometimes does a poor job describing the concept, even to the point that some reformed authors define the concept in a way that does not work in the Scriptural examples where God makes covenants with men.

I have been speaking all along about the concept of covenants and how to go about learning the concept from Scripture. (See post #23.) Forgive me that I did not previously provide a definition. I will now correct that oversight. Based on how the word covenant is used in the Bible, the simple definition is,

_a covenant is a binding arrangement between two parties which contains one or more promises_.

The word arrangement is used in this definition instead of agreement, because an agreement typically implies mutually agreed upon or negotiated conditions. While covenants between men can be of this form, it is never the form of covenant God makes with men.

Covenants can have the following characteristics:
• they can be between God and men
• they can be between men and God
• they can be between men and men
• they can be unilateral
• they can be mutually agreed upon
• they can be between equals or not
• they can include conditions which must be met by the second party
• they can be put into effect (ratified) simply by saying so
• they can be put into effect (ratified) by a covenant-sacrifice



MW said:


> The words used in Genesis 6-9 indicate the existence of God's covenant before it was established with Noah and his seed.



I can tell you understand the difference between "existence" and "established", but before I learned about covenants your statement would have been confusing. To help people having difficulty with covenant terminology the difference needs to be explained. While God is eternal and all that He does He purposed from eternity past, "Act 15:18 (KJV) Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world", the promise of this covenant was not established, was not put into effect, was not ratified, until after the flood.


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2017)

KeithW said:


> _a covenant is a binding arrangement between two parties which contains one or more promises_.



If it is an "arrangement" it must contain a testamentary aspect. But "agreement" must also be present because God requires faith and obedience in each and every instance. By faith Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.



KeithW said:


> the promise of this covenant was not established, was not put into effect, was not ratified, until after the flood.



Gen. 6:8, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Gen. 6:18, "But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark...." By faith Noah prepared an ark to the saving of his house. The covenant as established with Noah was in effectual operation before and through the flood.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 17, 2017)

MW said:


> If it is an "arrangement" it must contain a testamentary aspect.



This is incorrect.



MW said:


> But "agreement" must also be present because God requires faith and obedience in each and every instance.



You are confusing the difference between the covenant promise God established with Noah and (living creates) in Genesis 6 with the covenant promise God established with all men and all living creatures in Genesis 9. The one in Genesis 9 is not an "agreement" because God does not require faith and obedience in this instance.



MW said:


> By faith Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.



This is a good point and must not be lost in the confusion.

Heb. 11:7 (KJV) By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.​
This is referring to the covenant promise God established in Genesis 6, not Genesis 9. The texts here are clear, and I include them below.



MW said:


> The covenant as established with Noah was in effectual operation before and through the flood.



This point needs to be examined. Covenants contain promises, and contain who those promises are made to. Let us return to Scripture because we now need to be careful to examine the content of a covenant in the light of the concept of a covenant.

Before the flood:

Gen. 6:17-20 (KJV) 17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.​
After the flood:

Gen 9:9-11 (KJV) 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.​
We cannot simply say God established a covenant "with Noah" which was in effect before, through, and after the flood without considering the concept of what a covenant is and what the contents are. Covenants contain one or more promises, who those promises are made to, and if there are conditions to those promises. With respect to Noah, there was one promise established with one group before the flood, and a different promise established with an different (expanded) group after the flood.


----------



## MW (Jan 17, 2017)

KeithW said:


> This is incorrect.



If it is incorrect how did he become "heir" of the righteousness which is by faith? Your view strips the arrangement of the inheritance.



KeithW said:


> You are confusing the difference between the covenant promise God established with Noah and (living creates) in Genesis 6 with the covenant promise God established with all men and all living creatures in Genesis 9.



You raised the covenant made with Noah. I responded accordingly. That covenant includes conditions. Gen. 6:14, "Make thee an ark..." Verse 18, "and thou shalt come into the ark..." Verse 22, "Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he."

Genesis 9:9, after the flood, "I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you." It is the same covenant, only now it explicitly takes in "the seed."



KeithW said:


> The one in Genesis 9 is not an "agreement" because God does not require faith and obedience in this instance.



As noted, it is the same covenant, and its re-establishment with the inclusion of the seed is founded on the sacrifice of Noah in 8:20ff. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savour...," verse 21. What respects the earth is annexed to this covenant to show that there is an unconditional administration of providence which will preserve the earth in subservience to the covenant of grace.



KeithW said:


> Heb. 11:7 (KJV) By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.​
> This is referring to the covenant promise God established in Genesis 6, not Genesis 9. The texts here are clear, and I include them below.



Noah blessed Shem. It clearly refers equally to the covenant established with Noah before the flood and the extension of it to the "seed."

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## MW (Jan 17, 2017)

To see the significance of heirship after the flood consider the following insightful remarks from Patrick Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, 1:333-334:

"The second point to be noticed here, is the heirship given of this new world to Noah and his seed — given to them expressly as the children of faith.

Adam, at his creation, was constituted the lord of this world, and had kingly power and authority given him to subdue it and rule over it. But on the occasion of his fall, this grant, though not formally recalled, suffered a capital abridgment; since he was sent forth from Eden as a discrowned monarch, to do the part simply of a labourer on the surface of the earth, and with the discouraging assurance that it should reluctantly yield to him of its fruitfulness. Nor, when he afterwards so distinctly identified himself with God's promise and purpose of grace, by appearing as the head only of that portion of his seed who had faith in God, did there seem any alleviation of the evil: the curse that rested on the ground, rested on it still, even for the seed of blessing; and not they, but the ungodly Cainites, acquired in it the ascendancy of physical force and political dominion.

A change, however, appears in the relative position of things, when the flood had swept with its purifying waters over the earth. Man now rises, in the person of Noah, to a higher place in the world; yet not simply as man, but as a child of God, standing in faith. His faith had saved him amid the general wreck of the old world, to become in the new a second head of mankind, and an inheritor of earth's domain, as now purged and rescued from the pollution of evil. 'He is made heir,' as it is written in Hebrews, 'of the righteousness which is by faith,' — heir, that is, of all that properly belongs to such righteousness, not merely of the righteousness itself, but also of the world, which in the divine purpose it was destined to possess and occupy. Hence, as if there had been a new creation, and a new head brought in to exercise over it the right of sovereignty, the original blessing and grant to Adam are substantially renewed to Noah and his family: 'And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.' *Here, then, the righteousness of faith received direct from the grace of God the dowry that had been originally bestowed upon the righteousness of nature — not a blessing merely, but a blessing coupled with the heirship and dominion of the world.*"

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## KeithW (Jan 22, 2017)

> As noted, it is the same covenant,...


As noted previously, it is not the same promise as can clearly be seen in those Scriptures already provided. The concept of "covenant" is pointless if it excludes the Biblical concept of the one or more promises of a covenant.



> It clearly refers equally to the covenant established with Noah before the flood and the extension of it to the "seed."



Yes, the group the promise before the flood was made to is included in the group the promise after the flood was made to. But again, what are the promises? I previously pointed out in those Scripture that the promises before and after the flood are different. The Scriptures here are plain and obvious. So let us again look at Scripture about the "promise" after the flood.

Gen. 9:11 (KJV) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.​
Notice the word "by". Never again will God destroy the earth _by_ flood. This promise must also be looked at in the context of the Bible. 

2 Peter 3:10 (KJV) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.​
Before the flood God said He would destroy the world by flood. God also specifically promised to a small group that He would preserve them from this destruction. But it required conditions -- faith and action on the part of Noah.

After the flood God promised to all men and all creatures that He would no longer destroy the world by flood. God placed no conditions on men about this promise. This promise is not about who will be preserved from future destruction, which appears to be unlike what you said.

God promises that the next time He destroys the earth it will be fire. Elsewhere God does promise how the people He chooses will be preserved from this future destruction that He will bring about.


----------



## KeithW (Jan 22, 2017)

MW said:


> If it is incorrect how did he become "heir" of the righteousness which is by faith? Your view strips the arrangement of the inheritance.


There are places throughout Scripture which can explain heir and inheritance and receiving of promises without change the meaning of covenant. But you have already predecided against this. Let me instead provide another quote. After this I am withdrawing myself from the rest of this conversation. The system called covenant theology, depending on who you read, has a fault with understanding the concept of a covenant. This has been clearly demonstrated in this thread in that this flaw forces mistakes to be made with Scriptures were God makes or establishes covenants with men.

(Apologies to the people for the length.)

*"Hebrews 9:16", Vincent's Word Studies [1]*


For where a testament is (ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη)

"The English Version has involved this passage in hopeless obscurity by introducing the idea of a testament and a testator." This statement of Rendall (Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 159 [2]) is none too strong. That interpretation, however, is maintained by a very strong array of modern expositors. It is based upon κληρονομία 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 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 testator (θάνατου ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου)

Rend. it is necessary that the death of the institutor (of the covenant) should be borne. With the rendering testament, φέρεσθαι 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 γένεσθαι: "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 θάνατου φέρεσθαι is a very unusual and awkward expression.

Additional Note on Heb 9:16

Against the rendering testament for διαθήκη, and in favor of retaining covenant, are the following considerations:

(a) The abruptness of the change, and its interruption of the line of reasoning. It is introduced into the middle of a continuous argument, in which the new covenant is compared and contrasted with the Mosaic covenant (8:6-10:18).

(b) The turning-point, both of the analogy and of the contrast, is that both covenants were inaugurated and ratified by death: not ordinary, natural death, but sacrificial, violent death, accompanied with bloodshedding as an essential feature. Such a death is plainly indicated in Heb 9:15. If διαθήκη signifies testament, θάνατον death in Heb 9:16 must mean natural death without bloodshed.

(c) The figure of a testament would not appeal to Hebrews in connection with an inheritance. On the contrary, the idea of the κληρονομία was always associated in the Hebrew mind with the inheritance of Canaan, and that inheritance with the idea of a covenant. See Deu 4:20-23; Ch1 16:15-18; Psa 105:8-11.

(d) In lxx, from which our writer habitually quotes, διαθήκη has universally the meaning of covenant. It occurs about 350 times, mostly representing בְּרִית, covenant. In the Apocryphal books it has the same sense, except in Sir. 38:33, where it signifies disposition or arrangement. Διατιθέσθαι to dispose or arrange represents כָּרַֽת, to cut off, hew, divide. The phrase כָּרַֽת בְּרִֽת, to cut (i.e., make) a covenant, is very common. The verb marks a disposing by the divine will, to which man becomes a party by assent; while συντιθέσθαι indicates an arrangement between two equal parties. There is not a trace of the meaning testament in the Greek O.T. In the classics διαθήκη is usually testament. Philo uses the word in the sense of covenant, but also shows how it acquired that of testament (De Mutatione Nominum, 6 ff.). The Vulgate has testamentum, even where the sense of covenant is indisputable. See Exo 30:26; Num 14:44; Kg2 6:15; Jer 3:16; Mal 3:1; Luk 1:72, Act 3:25; Act 7:8. Also in N.T. quotations from the O.T., where, in its translation of the O.T., it uses foedus. See Jer 31:31, cit. Heb 8:8. For διατιθέσθαι of making a covenant, see Heb 8:10; Act 3:25; Heb 10:16.

(e) The ratification of a covenant by the sacrifice of a victim is attested by Gen 15:10; Psa 1:5; Jer 34:18. This is suggested also by the phrase כָּרַֽת בְּרִֽת, to cut a covenant, which finds abundant analogy in both Greek and Latin. Thus we have ὅρκια τάμνειν to cut oaths, that is, to sacrifice a victim in attestation (Hom. Il. ii. 124; Od. xxiv. 483: Hdt. vii. 132). Similarly, σπονδὰς let us cut (make) a league (Eurip. Hel. 1235): φίλια τέμνεσθαι to cement friendship by sacrificing a victim; lit. to cut friendship (Eurip. Suppl. 375). In Latin, foedus ferire to strike a league foedus ictum a ratified league, ratified by a blow (ictus).

(f) If testament is the correct translation in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, the writer is fairly chargeable with a rhetorical blunder; for Heb 9:18 ff. is plainly intended as a historical illustration of the propositions in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, and the illustration turns on a point entirely different from the matter illustrated. The writer is made to say, "A will is of no force until after the testator's death; therefore the first covenant was ratified with the blood of victims.

1. Vincent, Marvin R. "Hebrews Chapter 9". _Vincent's Word Studies_. 1887.
Internet Sacred Text Archive. Accessed August 2, 2011.
<http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/vws/heb009.htm>

2. This quotation is attributed to the wrong source. It should be _Theology of the Hebrew Christians_, not _Epistle to the Hebrews_.


----------



## MW (Jan 22, 2017)

KeithW said:


> The concept of "covenant" is pointless if it excludes the Biblical concept of the one or more promises of a covenant.



I cannot see where I have excluded any promise from the covenant. I have merely pointed out that the promise relating to the preservation of the earth is subordinate to the covenant established with Noah and his seed, and that this covenant was established before the flood with Noah and extended to the seed after it. The promises relating to preservation are still part of the covenant but subordinated to the purpose of grace.

Let us look at your plain Scripture reference.

Gen. 9:11, "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

The adverb וְלֹֽא contains the conjunction וְ, which indicates an added element. It is translated "neither." The words as plainly read indicate that the promise relating to the earth is not the covenant per se, but an added element. Before the flood God established His covenant with Noah and destroyed the earth by water. After the flood He establishes the covenant with Noah and His seed and promises He will not any more destroy the earth by water.

It would be a categorical error to collapse the covenant into this one promise. The covenant was established with Noah and his seed, and it included a number of promises. A single unconditional promise does not constitute an unconditional covenant. The promise relating to the earth is given after Noah's sacrifice without any reference to the establishing of the covenant. It is clearly added in relation to the covenant so as to show the way it will serve the purpose of grace in the line of Noah. Immediately afterwards we find that Noah cursed one of his children, and within a few generations the earth is divided. This should make it plain that there were conditions to the covenant.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## MW (Jan 22, 2017)

KeithW said:


> Let me instead provide another quote. After this I am withdrawing myself from the rest of this conversation. The system called covenant theology, depending on who you read, has a fault with understanding the concept of a covenant. This has been clearly demonstrated in this thread in that this flaw forces mistakes to be made with Scriptures were God makes or establishes covenants with men.



You have demonstrated in this thread that you impose your own system of covenant theology on the teaching of holy Scripture, and then expect everyone to accept this as the "plain" meaning of the Scripture and to allow the Scripture to speak for itself in your words.

And now you choose to make one final assault by means of a quotation and then excuse yourself from the conversation before a response can be made.

The quotation is of the same kind with those that were presented before. It was previously shown that there are interpreters on the other side of the debate, and that a bare quotation of commentators is to no purpose. Notwithstanding, you have gone ahead and made a bare quotation from a commentator, and then proceeded to announce you are quitting the conversation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

