Old and new covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
But I also have a list of various commentaries and reference materials which show that the Greek word diatheke in New Testament usage is supposed to mean covenant, not testament.

From my understanding (take it with a grain of salt until a minister verifies what I say), in the Hebrew language "berith" is the term we translate to "covenant". It was used when a promise was made by God and sealed with a sacrament: tree of life, rainbow, circumcision, etc. When those who translated this text into Greek (Septuagint), there was no good Greek term to communicate this transaction. The two choices were diatheke and syntheke. Diatheke in Roman usage meant will or testament - something promised upon the death of a person. Syntheke meant an agreement made between two equal parties. Both not good terms since God can't die and God is not an equal party with man. Nevertheless, they chose diatheke.

Fast forward to the writing of the New Testament where the majority of the text is in Greek, we come across the word diatheke multiple times. Now translating into English, where we have both covenant and will/testament words, the question becomes, does the writer mean berith-translated diatheke (covenant) or Roman-used diatheke (will/testament). The translator must use the context in order to choose. The KJV translators obviously thought testament should be used much more often than other modern versions. In fact, most modern versions only use it once because it is impossible not to (Heb. 9:16). Take, for example, the ESV
Heb. 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.

"Will" must be used because the death of the person establishes it. There's no other explanation. Of course, in the previous verse, they translate the same word as "covenant" (twice!) which makes the whole argument somewhat confusing. The "For" in v. 16 makes no sense unless all three words are translated "will/testament." Moreover, it says "since a death has occurred". That only makes sense if we're talking about a will or testament.

So is the Authorized Version correct in it's usage of testament?
 
But I also have a list of various commentaries and reference materials which show that the Greek word diatheke in New Testament usage is supposed to mean covenant, not testament.

From my understanding (take it with a grain of salt until a minister verifies what I say), in the Hebrew language "berith" is the term we translate to "covenant". It was used when a promise was made by God and sealed with a sacrament: tree of life, rainbow, circumcision, etc. When those who translated this text into Greek (Septuagint), there was no good Greek term to communicate this transaction. The two choices were diatheke and syntheke. Diatheke in Roman usage meant will or testament - something promised upon the death of a person. Syntheke meant an agreement made between two equal parties. Both not good terms since God can't die and God is not an equal party with man. Nevertheless, they chose diatheke.

Fast forward to the writing of the New Testament where the majority of the text is in Greek, we come across the word diatheke multiple times. Now translating into English, where we have both covenant and will/testament words, the question becomes, does the writer mean berith-translated diatheke (covenant) or Roman-used diatheke (will/testament). The translator must use the context in order to choose. The KJV translators obviously thought testament should be used much more often than other modern versions. In fact, most modern versions only use it once because it is impossible not to (Heb. 9:16). Take, for example, the ESV
Heb. 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.

"Will" must be used because the death of the person establishes it. There's no other explanation. Of course, in the previous verse, they translate the same word as "covenant" (twice!) which makes the whole argument somewhat confusing. The "For" in v. 16 makes no sense unless all three words are translated "will/testament." Moreover, it says "since a death has occurred". That only makes sense if we're talking about a will or testament.

So is the Authorized Version correct in it's usage of testament?

Just checked on e-sword the KJV uses the word testament 14 times but never in the OT. They use covenant 292 times in the whole bible but only 20 times in the NT.
 
The basic question is: what do inspired NT writers intend by using "diatheke?"

By the time the NT is written, there are two significant current ideas tied to this term. The one is a "secular" use, the other "theological." The basic idea within the word is a unilateral (one sided) disposition; which notion leads naturally enough to the ordinary secular meaning of "will," a one-sided disposition from the recently departed.

The same term had been used by Greek-speaking, religious Jews for hundreds of years (by the time the NT was written) where the Septuagint used it every time "berit" (covenant) was given a Greek rendering. Obviously, the word does not mean "last-will-and-testament" for an OT reader. The word was thus employed for a specific purpose; and overall its recognized semantic range was widened commensurately.

So, there's a choice to be made in every NT use of this word, "diatheke." In each its own context: does it have a "secular" sense; or does it bear the religious or theological freight of the OT usage?

Since the ASV-1901, modern translations have generally deferred to the Greek-OT background in almost all cases. George Milligan (of Moulton & Milligan fame) at one time argued for a complete reliance on the OT idea of "covenant," even in Heb.9:16-17; but I understand he later backed off.

Rev. Winzer's point is that the WCF, being of the same historic era and representing much the same basic translational mindset as reflected in the KJV, both make explicit hermeneutical and theological use of the "testamental" (secular) sense of the term "diatheke" by what they affirm for truth (the former after the latter). "Covenant" is the BIG-PICTURE term; "testamtent" is the FOCUSED term.

Depending on the breadth of one's "covenant" concept, it is possible to find both "death" and "succession" or "inheritance" tied closely to the OT biblical covenant. But since such testamental emphasis is the particular aspect in view on several occasions in the NT, it is reasonable to commend the KJV translators for drawing out and making plain what they understood as the major intent of the inspired writer here or there; if you will: the covenant-element (narrowed) that was most important to his teaching moment.
 
The basic question is: what do inspired NT writers intend by using "diatheke?"

By the time the NT is written, there are two significant current ideas tied to this term. The one is a "secular" use, the other "theological." The basic idea within the word is a unilateral (one sided) disposition; which notion leads naturally enough to the ordinary secular meaning of "will," a one-sided disposition from the recently departed.

The same term had been used by Greek-speaking, religious Jews for hundreds of years (by the time the NT was written) where the Septuagint used it every time "berit" (covenant) was given a Greek rendering. Obviously, the word does not mean "last-will-and-testament" for an OT reader. The word was thus employed for a specific purpose; and overall its recognized semantic range was widened commensurately.

So, there's a choice to be made in every NT use of this word, "diatheke." In each its own context: does it have a "secular" sense; or does it bear the religious or theological freight of the OT usage?

Since the ASV-1901, modern translations have generally deferred to the Greek-OT background in almost all cases. George Milligan (of Moulton & Milligan fame) at one time argued for a complete reliance on the OT idea of "covenant," even in Heb.9:16-17; but I understand he later backed off.

Rev. Winzer's point is that the WCF, being of the same historic era and representing much the same basic translational mindset as reflected in the KJV, both make explicit hermeneutical and theological use of the "testamental" (secular) sense of the term "diatheke" by what they affirm for truth (the former after the latter). "Covenant" is the BIG-PICTURE term; "testamtent" is the FOCUSED term.

Depending on the breadth of one's "covenant" concept, it is possible to find both "death" and "succession" or "inheritance" tied closely to the OT biblical covenant. But since such testamental emphasis is the particular aspect in view on several occasions in the NT, it is reasonable to commend the KJV translators for drawing out and making plain what they understood as the major intent of the inspired writer here or there; if you will: the covenant-element (narrowed) that was most important to his teaching moment.

Thank you Rev. Buchanan. That clarifies things quite a bit for me. I see now the KJV translators reason for differentiating covenant/testament like they did. I notice as you said with the ASV that the NKJV translators retained Testament/testator in Heb 9:16,17 but only there. I am glad you posted this because a few lexicons/commentaries on e-sword I was reading was really bashing the KJV for using testament. For instance Vincent Word Studies says “The English Version has involved this passage in hopeless obscurity by introducing the idea of a testament and a testator.” I am not a KJV only/ or even necessarily "KJV Priority" as Steve says but I have come to trust in it as a reliable translation to study from. I admit some of the critiques of the Authorized Version's use of "testament/testator" were a little startling but I always look for a second opinion and I thank you for yours. If may ask Rev. Buchanan do you think the KJV's use of "testament" is also justifiable in other verses besides Heb 9:16,17 obviously context is the major factor. Here's an example of their use of it somewhere else "Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail." It seems out of place here but I am no expert. Did you think they may have overused it in the Authorized Version?
 
Edward,
A good bit of my mind is simply to advise you to defer to the judgment of your teachers (and to translators), until such time as you feel competent (and others wisely judge you ready) to assess the merits of this or that case in particular. Can you appreciate the translator's choice in Rev.11:19? If you cannot articulate a justification for their choice, you also cannot reasonably criticize it. And it might not be fair to ask me or someone else to judge it either. "No reason I can think of," is apt only for a equivalent Doctor to render.

If you appreciate the KJV, don't go looking for reasons to criticize it; but look to appreciate why those translators might have made the decisions they did, and respect them for it; even if (in due time) you think you might have made a different decision in their shoes, or they would have chosen differently in a different era.

Many years ago, I read Rev. Milligan's own defense of "covenant" everywhere in the NT for diatheke (even in Heb.9:16-17, which involves other decisions on how to construe the other words of the context); and he persuaded me of that wisdom. So, I am myself simply a man taught of his teacher. Personally, I prefer the "big-picture" term as a consistent rendering.

HOWEVER, other teachers (Rev.Winzer among them) have also taught me the wisdom of translational precision in a Version prepared for the general public; to which we might add the benefits of correlation of Scripture and confessional statements. Single-word correspondence is NOT the way language actually functions across cultures and time. Therefore, what I might gain via consistency (combined with my linguistic training) would likely impoverish the majority of readers, who typically communicate verbally entirely in one language. Hence, the intended nuance of the Greek term (if it be known) should be clearly and precisely expressed. There is always a trade-off, and a word's semantic "penumbra" cannot be equally rendered into the target language.

So, to the text you asked of, Rev.11:19. The ark of the "covenant" corresponds conceptually very nicely with the OT ark in the Holy of Holies, and the temple/altar motif in that chapter are prominent. However, the NT text is not quite perfectly correspondent to any OT description of the cultic ark. No place in the OT have I found "his covenant" directly connected with the ark; but respecting a variant reading (of Rev.11:19) I have found numerous instances of: "the ark of the covenant of the Lord."

With regard to "his covenant." Frequently in the OT it is the Lord's remembrance, the Lord's "seeing" his covenant, bringing it to mind that is the source of blessing for his people--even those who often deserve his curse. At Rev.11:19, the immediate context is judgment and ruin on the ungodly, while blessings abound to the saints. Why is this so? It is because of the atonement symbolized by the ark. The blood sprinkled on the mercy seat of the heavenly throne is none else' than the Mediator's. The saints are saved to life everlasting, because of the one given unto death for their sake.

So, I think one can argue that the testamentary aspect of the covenant is that angle on the whole which the KJV translators believed was most significant even in this place. It is, in a sense, THE principal NT covenant-angle. You can make a decent case for having the term "covenant" here; but with "testament" is the connection actually lost to the OT scene? I don't think so; and the translators apparently thought "testament" conveyed the inspired intent with the greatest vigor.

:2cents:
 
Edward,
A good bit of my mind is simply to advise you to defer to the judgment of your teachers (and to translators), until such time as you feel competent (and others wisely judge you ready) to assess the merits of this or that case in particular. Can you appreciate the translator's choice in Rev.11:19? If you cannot articulate a justification for their choice, you also cannot reasonably criticize it. And it might not be fair to ask me or someone else to judge it either. "No reason I can think of," is apt only for a equivalent Doctor to render.

If you appreciate the KJV, don't go looking for reasons to criticize it; but look to appreciate why those translators might have made the decisions they did, and respect them for it; even if (in due time) you think you might have made a different decision in their shoes, or they would have chosen differently in a different era.

Many years ago, I read Rev. Milligan's own defense of "covenant" everywhere in the NT for diatheke (even in Heb.9:16-17, which involves other decisions on how to construe the other words of the context); and he persuaded me of that wisdom. So, I am myself simply a man taught of his teacher. Personally, I prefer the "big-picture" term as a consistent rendering.

HOWEVER, other teachers (Rev.Winzer among them) have also taught me the wisdom of translational precision in a Version prepared for the general public; to which we might add the benefits of correlation of Scripture and confessional statements. Single-word correspondence is NOT the way language actually functions across cultures and time. Therefore, what I might gain via consistency (combined with my linguistic training) would likely impoverish the majority of readers, who typically communicate verbally entirely in one language. Hence, the intended nuance of the Greek term (if it be known) should be clearly and precisely expressed. There is always a trade-off, and a word's semantic "penumbra" cannot be equally rendered into the target language.

So, to the text you asked of, Rev.11:19. The ark of the "covenant" corresponds conceptually very nicely with the OT ark in the Holy of Holies, and the temple/altar motif in that chapter are prominent. However, the NT text is not quite perfectly correspondent to any OT description of the cultic ark. No place in the OT have I found "his covenant" directly connected with the ark; but respecting a variant reading (of Rev.11:19) I have found numerous instances of: "the ark of the covenant of the Lord."

With regard to "his covenant." Frequently in the OT it is the Lord's remembrance, the Lord's "seeing" his covenant, bringing it to mind that is the source of blessing for his people--even those who often deserve his curse. At Rev.11:19, the immediate context is judgment and ruin on the ungodly, while blessings abound to the saints. Why is this so? It is because of the atonement symbolized by the ark. The blood sprinkled on the mercy seat of the heavenly throne is none else' than the Mediator's. The saints are saved to life everlasting, because of the one given unto death for their sake.

So, I think one can argue that the testamentary aspect of the covenant is that angle on the whole which the KJV translators believed was most significant even in this place. It is, in a sense, THE principal NT covenant-angle. You can make a decent case for having the term "covenant" here; but with "testament" is the connection actually lost to the OT scene? I don't think so; and the translators apparently thought "testament" conveyed the inspired intent with the greatest vigor.

:2cents:

Thank Rev. Buchanan I will take your advice on the matter and just trust that the AV translators where obviously better equipped to make translation choices than I am. I don't have a working knowledge of Greek yet, I will be starting classes next fall but until I get a good grasp on the language I'll rest in the the judgments of those wiser and better qualified than I. Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking time out of your day to assist me. God Bless.
 
To piggy-back on Rev. Buchanan's comments, we have a redemptive-historical state of affairs which changes the meaning of "covenant." We move from promise to fulfilment. The Old Testament "covenant" has the nature of a type with its natural imperfections. The death of the testator fulfils this type. With the death of the testator the "covenant" is seen to have a testamentary force. What belonged to type and shadow is now seen as "old," and what has been realised is "new." So in one sense there is an old and a new covenant, but it is in fact the testamentary force of the covenant which has brought about this state of affairs.
 
To piggy-back on Rev. Buchanan's comments, we have a redemptive-historical state of affairs which changes the meaning of "covenant." We move from promise to fulfilment. The Old Testament "covenant" has the nature of a type with its natural imperfections. The death of the testator fulfils this type. With the death of the testator the "covenant" is seen to have a testamentary force. What belonged to type and shadow is now seen as "old," and what has been realised is "new." So in one sense there is an old and a new covenant, but it is in fact the testamentary force of the covenant which has brought about this state of affairs.

Thanks Matthew! I can see why the KJV chose to use testament in some places, it helps bring out the nuance of the greek word "diatheke" in a particular context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top