# Hebrews 9:16-17



## Steve Owen (Jul 18, 2005)

Heb 9:16-17, NKJV:


> For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.



The word translated _Testament_ is the Greek word *diatheke* which is rendered _Covenant_ everwhere else in Hebrews and almost everywhere else in the NT. I am a bit uneasy with the sudden change of translation, and I would like the opinion of someone better versed than I am in NT Greek to comment on this alternative translation, proposed by James Haldane in his commentary:-


> For where there is a covenant, there must also be the death of the appointed [sacrifice]. For a covenant is confirmed over [or 'upon'] the dead; otherwise it is of no force at all while the appointed [sacrifice] lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.



I have a little knowledge of the ancient languages, and this translation seems to work and to be more in keeping with the context, but I'd be interested to hear what others think.

Grace &amp; Peace,

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 19, 2005)

I'm of the opinion (encouraged by authors like O. Palmer Robertson and George Milligan, his earlier opinion) that "covenant" should be the standard translation, with one _possible_ exception in Galatians.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Jul 19, 2005)

Calvin's Commentary

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/hebrews.htm




> 16. For where a testament is, etc. Even this one passage is a sufficient proof, that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew; for tyrb means in Hebrew a covenant, but not a testament; but in Greek, diaqh>kh, includes both ideas; and the Apostle, alluding to its secondary meaning, holds that the promises should not have been otherwise ratified and valid, had they not been sealed by the death of Christ. And this he proves by referring to what is usually the case as to wills or testaments, the effect of which is suspended until the death of those whose wills they are.
> 
> The Apostle may yet seem to rest on too weak an argument, so that what he says may be easily disproved. For it may be said, that God made no testament or will under the Law; but it was a covenant that he made with the ancient people. Thus, neither from the fact nor from the name, can it be concluded that Christ´s death was necessary. For if he infers from the fact, that Christ ought to have died, because a testament is not ratified except by the death of the testator, the answer may be this, that |berit|, the word ever used by Moses, is a covenant made between those who are alive, and we cannot think otherwise of the fact itself. Now, as to the word used, he simply alluded, as I have already said, to the two meanings it has in Greek; he therefore dwells chiefly on the thing in itself. Nor is it any objection to say, that it was a covenant that God made with his people; for that very covenant bore some likeness to a testament, for it was ratified by blood.F147
> 
> ...



Apologies that the Greek and Hebrew fonts are not quite coming out right in the above quote.


----------

