God'sElectSaint
Puritan Board Freshman
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?