Covenant or Testament - Which? by William Warren Prescott

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 14, 1911

Covenant or Testament — Which?

By William Warren Prescott

We have already called attention to the fact that in order to arrive at a correct interpretation of the New Testament, it is necessary to remember that it is a further development of the gospel as revealed in the Old Testament, and that, therefore, the meaning of words sometimes turns upon the use of the corresponding words in treating the same subject in the Old Testament. A further application of this principle is found in determining the meaning to be attached to the Greek word diatheke in the New Testament, translated “covenant” and “testament.” In the Authorized Version the words covenant and testament appear to be used in most cases interchangeably. In the English Revised Version the word covenant is preferred in the text with the marginal reading “testament.” In the American Standard Revised Version the word covenant is used in every case without any alternative reading in the margin, except in Heb. 9:16, 17, where the word testament is used in the text, with this note in the margin, “The Greek word here used signifies both covenant and testament.”

In determining which word is the proper one to be used, we should remember that the covenant idea does not originate in the New Testament, but dates from patriarchal times, and that what is said in the New Testament upon this subject bears the closest relation to the Old Testament teaching upon the same subject.

It is true that the Greek word diatheke, or covenant, used in the New Testament, signifies both covenant and testament, or will, in ordinary Greek writings. If, therefore, the New Testament was an independent revelation, and not based upon the previous revelation found in the Old Testament, we might be in doubt whether to translate this word covenant or testament. But in view of the close relation between the two divisions of the Holy Scriptures, the proper way to determine the meaning of this word in the New Testament is to consider its relation to the Hebrew word berith, translated

covenant in the Old Testament. This may be made clear by referring to a specific case. When the promise of the new covenant, recorded in Jer. 31:33, 34, is transferred to the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 8:8-12), it would be manifestly a violation of all sound rules of exegesis to give to the Greek word which takes the place in the epistle to the Hebrews of the Hebrew word for covenant in the book of Jeremiah, any different meaning than that which is attached to the Hebrew word for covenant in the book of Jeremiah; but the Hebrew word berith, or covenant, not only in Jeremiah, but in every other case where it is used in the Old Testament, means simply covenant, and never testament. The idea of a testament or will does not attach to this word at all. In view of this fact it seems to be a serious departure from the right principles of interpretation to give to this Greek word in the New Testament any other meaning than covenant, even though the word itself may signify testament as well. We therefore are of the opinion that the Greek word diatheke, which is used in the New Testament as an equivalent to the Hebrew word berith, translated covenant in the Old Testament, should in every case be rendered covenant, and that the use of the word testament in any instance is entirely unwarranted.

It will perhaps appear to the reader that Heb. 9:16, 17 must be an exception to this statement, and we will, therefore, give a little study to this passage. The examination of the alternative readings given in the margin of the Revised Version, both English and American, will show that the translators did not appear to be quite sure of their ground, and wavered somewhat between the words covenant and testament. This may be seen by combining the alternative readings thus: “For where a testament [or, covenant] is, there must of necessity be [or, be brought] the death of him that made it. For a testament [or, covenant] is of force where there hath been death [or, over the dead]: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth [or, for doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?].” It will be noticed that the Revised Version drops out the word testator altogether, and that the question of time found in the Authorized Version in the expression “after men are dead” also disappears, and it should also be noted that in the expression translated “where there hath been death,” with the alternative reading “over the dead,” the plural form is used in the Greek, indicating the death of more than one.

As being more true to the original text, and more in harmony with the Old Testament idea of covenant making, we submit the following translation of Heb. 9:15-17, taken from the translation of the Bible by B. Boothroyd, D. D.:— “And for this purpose he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called might receive the promised blessing of the everlasting inheritance. For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of that which establisheth it. For a covenant is made firm over dead victims; whereas it is of no force while that which establisheth it liveth.”

It appears evident that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is in this particular part of the epistle emphasizing the necessity of the death of Christ in order to ratify the new covenant. In doing this he calls attention to the method, well known among the Hebrews, of making a covenant, a method illustrated in the case of the covenant with Abraham recorded in Gen. 15:7-21. It seems altogether foreign to the argument to introduce the idea of a testament or will, and it is certainly a violation of all rules of translation to give to the Greek word in the sixteenth verse an altogether different meaning than is given to the same word in the fifteenth verse; but in the fifteenth verse, the word testament could not possibly be used in place of covenant, and it therefore surely ought not to be used in the sixteenth verse.

In view of the facts which we have adduced, we suggest that it would be proper to drop out from our treatment of the covenant the words testament and testator, and to eliminate from Heb. 9:16, 17, the idea of a will and of the time question in its relation to the new covenant, and to give to this passage the only interpretation which is in harmony with the line of argument followed in the epistle to the Hebrews, and with the treatment of this whole question in the Old Testament. We believe that the translation and interpretation here suggested are the only ones which will stand the test of critical examination and of a careful application of the sound rules of Scripture exegesis.

We might add that the use of the word testament in place of the word covenant in the New Testament appears to have grown out of the fact that in the Latin, or Vulgate, version of the New Testament the word testamentum was improperly used as a translation of the Greek word diatheke. This is not sufficient reason, however, for using the word testament in the English translation.

W. W. P.