PACK 
 
 iNEX 
 
 s 
 
 097 
 S31 
 
 METAPHYSICAL DISSERTATION BEARING 
 OX NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM, . 
 
 II. 
 
 CRITICAL DISSERTATION ON S 
 ITS LOGICAL SEQUENCE. .
 
 I. flDetapb^sical SMssertation 
 
 BEARING ON 
 
 IRew {Testament Criticism, 
 
 JULY 1889. 
 
 Re-written from a PLEA FOR A NEW ENGLISH VERSION 
 OF THE SCRIPTURES, 1864. 
 
 Spirit TTvevfio, nil 
 
 THROUGHOUT the New Testament the noun 
 Trvev/jia (from Trvelv to blow or breathe) occurs 
 above 380 times, and is used with much variety 
 of scope and meaning. Yet as its Latin and 
 English representative, spiritus, spirit, has similar 
 latitude of signification, spirit may, in most 
 instances, adequately represent Trvevfia. It is 
 highly important to distinguish Trvev^a from ^rv^rj 
 soul, and 0)77 life. Life is that active principle of 
 which the opposite is death. N A11 life, accord- 
 ing to Scripture/ says Delitzsch in his Biblical 
 Psychology, ^ is activity and operation of the spirit/ 
 With God is the fountain of life : his only-begotten 
 Son is The Life ; and life comes, in the Scriptural 
 usage of the word, to denote the highest blessedness. 
 N In the way of righteousness is life." "* He that 
 findeth me," says Wisdom, s findeth life." "* To be 
 spiritually minded is life and peace." It is with 
 
 A 
 
 21 17438
 
 2 Soul and Spirit. 
 
 similar import that the word life is used in these 
 well-known and richly significant phrases, Prince 
 of Life, Bread of Life, Water of Life, Tree of Life, 
 Book of Life, Crown of Life. The soul is said, by 
 Delitzsch, to be ^the product or manifestation of the 
 spirit* and to H include the intellectual nature, the 
 desires and affections, that part of man which, so . 
 to speak, is turned towards the flesh and the 
 world. 1 ' Hence the -fyvyjucos avOpwiros or natural 
 man is man unsanctified by divine grace, who 
 receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 
 they being foolishness to him ; ''neither*' says the 
 Apostle Paul, "* can he know them, for they are 
 spiritually discerned 1 ' (i Corinthians 2. 14). 
 
 The spirit is, as it were, the mainspring of the soul, 
 animating, ruling, guiding it: it is one's personality, 
 one's very self, acting through the soul upon the 
 body, and giving to one's actions their character 
 and their energy. Hence it has been observed 
 that while, in the Scriptures, it is common for a man 
 to address his sou/, there is no instance of a man 
 addressing his spirit. The spirit is (so to speak) the 
 mover and regulator, and the giver of the address to 
 the soul. The spirit within the man is that which 
 knoweth the things of the man. An ungodly man 
 is unrenewed in the spirit of his mind. The spirit 
 by which he is influenced is the spirit of the world. 
 Hence the things of the world and of the flesh are 
 the objects of his chief attention, leading him to 
 speak in this fashion to his soul, N Soul, thou hast 
 many goods laid up for many years : take thine 
 ease; eat; drink; be merry/ But when the spirit is
 
 The Spiritual Man. 3 
 
 renewed in accordance with Ezekiel 36. 26, X A 
 new heart will I give you ; and a new spirit will 
 I put within you/ then the soul receives new 
 principles of action, and thus moves and works in 
 a direction the opposite of that in which it formerly 
 acted, the language of the renewed spirit being of 
 this kind, N Bless the LORD, O my soul/ " Return 
 unto thy rest, O my soul, for the LORD hath dealt 
 bountifully with thee." Accordingly the sou/ of the 
 Virgin Mary magnified the Lord when her spirit 
 rejoiced in God her Saviour. The soul renewed and 
 sanctified through the renewal and sanctification 
 of the spirit uses the members of the body in the 
 service of their Creator, and thus the Apostle Paul 
 prays for the Thessalonian brethren that their 
 whole spirit, and soul, and body may be preserved 
 blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. The true .Christian is a spiritual man 
 (TrvevfiariKos}. No longer carnally minded, he is 
 spiritually minded : his circumcision is that of the 
 heart in the spirit : he serves in newness of spirit, 
 and exemplifies the first of the beatitudes in the 
 Sermon on the Mount, N Blessed are the poor in 
 spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." 
 
 The New Testament discloses a most intimate 
 connection between the Holy Spirit and the 
 renewed spirit of the Christian. N The Spirit 
 himself beareth witness with our spirit that we 
 are children of God" (Romans 8. 16). "'They 
 were all filled with the Holy Spirit " (Acts 2. 4). 
 "* Ye are God's temple ; and the Spirit of God 
 dwelleth in you." '" Your body is the Temple of
 
 4 Yielding up the Spirit. 
 
 the Holy Spirit in you " (i Corinthians 3. 16 ; 6. 19). 
 x If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the 
 Spirit'' (Galatians 5. 25). Similarly, Ezekiel 36. 
 26-27, Mark I. 8, Luke i. 15, 41, 67, Acts 4. 8, 31, 
 Romans 8. 9, 11, and i John 3. 24 ; 4. 13. 
 
 In the Authorised Version of the New Testa- 
 ment uniformity of translation is appropriately 
 adhered to in dealing with the word Tn/eO/m in a 
 large majority of the passages containing it, the 
 English equivalent spirit being used. In one 
 passage, however, namely, Revelation 13. 15, 
 Tn/eu/ia is translated life. " He had power to give 
 life unto the image of the beast/ In the Revised 
 Version of 1881 breath is preferable; but there 
 seems to be no sufficient reason for not adhering 
 to the usual rendering spirit the giving of spirit 
 to an image being as good English as the giving 
 of life (Isaiah 42. 5). 
 
 In Matthew 27. 50 and John 19. 30, the 
 words, yielded up the ghost, and gave up the ghost, 
 come far short of expressing the deep meaning of 
 the original, a<prjfce TO 7rvevfj,a, and TrapeSca/ce TO 
 7rvev/j,a. These Greek phrases imply, not merely 
 that Jesus expired, like eeWei;c-e(z/) in Mark 
 15. 37 and Luke 23. 46, but that he voluntarily 
 surrendered his spirit into the hands of his 
 heavenly Father, according to his own words in 
 John 10. 17, N I lay down my soul, that I may take 
 it again." In the Revised Version the substitution 
 of his spirit for the ghost is a decided advantage, 
 as bringing out the force of the original : 
 
 Matthew 27. 50 
 John 19. 30 
 
 yielded up his spirit, 
 gave up his spirit.
 
 The Holy Spirit. 5 
 
 The fact here stated is thus seen to be the 
 counterpart of the Saviour's expiring words as 
 given in Luke 23. 46, ^Father, into thy hands I 
 commend my spirit." 
 
 In connection with this point, it is to be 
 regretted that the suggestion of the American 
 Revision Committee to substitute Spirit for Ghost 
 universally in the phrase the Holy Ghost was not 
 accepted. Ghost would be obviously unsuitable in 
 most passages where Trvev^a occurs. In Psalm 51. 
 11, Isaiah 63. 10, 11, Luke 11. 13, Eph. 1. 13; 4. 30, 
 i Thess. 4. 8, where the context contains, besides 
 the epithet Holy, some other defining or qualifying 
 word, Holy Spirit is preferred to Holy Ghost : 
 thy Holy Spirit, his Holy Spirit, that Holy Spirit 
 of promise, the Holy Spirit of God. In one 
 passage (Luke 1 1. 13)the expression the Holy Spirit 
 is used absolutely, s How much more shall your 
 heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that 
 ask him?" Why should not the same expression 
 have been used in the more than ninety passages 
 of the New Testament where the phrase Holy 
 Ghost occurs ? Apart from the simple unsuitable- 
 ness of the word Ghost, there is in several of these 
 passages this further disadvantage that the occur- 
 rence of Ghost in close proximity to Spirit, where 
 the self-same Holy Spirit is designated by both 
 words, obscures this identity, and thus mars the 
 force of the passages : 
 
 Luke 2. 26-27. And it was revealed unto him by 
 the Holy Ghost, that he should not see 
 death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
 And he came by theSpirit into the temple.
 
 6 The Wind. 
 
 Luke 4. 1. And Jesus, being full of the 
 Holy Ghost, returned from 
 [the] Jordan, and was led by 
 the Spirit into the wilderness. 
 John i. 33. Upon whom thou shalt see the 
 Spirit descending, and remain- 
 ing on him, the same is he which 
 baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 
 7. 39. But this spake he of the Spirit, 
 . . . for the Holy Ghost was 
 not yet given. 
 
 Acts 2. 4. And they were all filled with the 
 Holy Ghost, and began to 
 speak with other tongues, as the 
 Spirit gave them utterance. 
 Similarly John 14. 16-26, Acts 5. 3-9 ; 16. 6-7, 
 i Cor. 2. 10-14 ; 12. 3-4, and i Peter i. 11-12. 
 
 In the Revised Version, Ghost \s retained in three 
 of these eleven passages, namely, Acts 5. 3 ; 16. 6 ; 
 I Peter i. 12; whereas in the other passages it 
 appropriately gives place to Spirit. Nowhere in 
 the Old Testament is nn translated ghost. 
 
 In only one passage of the Authorised Version, 
 namely, John 3. 8, is irvev^a translated wind; and 
 wind is retained in the Revised Version. Yet 
 in none of the 380 other passages does irvev^a 
 countenance this exceptional rendering. What in 
 Hebrew is expressed by the one word nn is 
 expressed in Greek, Latin, and English, by two 
 words, namely, Trvev^a and ai/e/^o?, spiritus and 
 ventus, spirit and wind, respectively. And there 
 seems to be no reason why Jesus should not have
 
 Born of the Spirit. 7 
 
 used o aVe/io? rather than TO 7n/ei)//,a in John 3. 8, 
 had he meant the wind. This appears still further 
 obvious from the fact that the phrase TO Trz/eO/ia 
 occurs again in the end of the same sentence, as 
 well as previously in verses 5, 6, with apparently 
 one and the same reference, and in these three 
 instances clearly denotes The Spirit. Hence, even 
 if in some other passages irvevpa should apparently 
 mean wind, such could not prove that TO irvev/j^a 
 in the beginning can have a meaning different from 
 its meaning in the end of John 3. 8, especially as 
 identity of meaning appears essential to the force 
 of the argument : As is TO Trvev/j-a, so is every one 
 who is born or begotten etc rov irvevparos. 
 
 The arguments for proving that the first TO 
 Trvevpa here designates the ^cvind seem far from 
 conclusive. Alford writes : 
 
 N Bengel, after Origen and Augustine, takes TO jrveufj.a. of the 
 Holy Spirit exclusively : but this can hardly be. The form of 
 the sentence, as well as its import, is against it. The vvel, ciKotfets, 
 olSas, are all said of well-known facts. And the comparison 
 would not hold on that supposition. "As the Spirit is in His 
 working on those born of Him, so is every cite that is born of the 
 Spirit." But on the other interpretation, we have The wind 
 breatheth, etc.: so is, i.e. " so it is with" (see a similar con- 
 struction, Matt. xiii. 45) every one born of the Spirit. Notice 
 it is not 6 &ve/j.os here, but TO TrveO/ta, the gentle breath of the 
 wind ; and it is heard, not felt ; a case in which the OVK otSas 
 K.T.X. is more applicable than in that of a violent wind steadily 
 blowing. It is one of those sudden breezes springing up on a 
 calm day, which has no apparent direction, but we hear it 
 rustling in the leaves around/ 
 
 This imaginary and weakly argued description 
 is unsupported by proof. In not one of the 380 
 other passages does irvev^a bear this meaning ;
 
 8 The Voice of the Spirit. 
 
 and there is certainly nothing to indicate that 
 here it denotes a gentle breeze of wind, or that 
 aVe/409 would be inapplicable to such a breeze. 
 It does not appear that ave/Ao? in itself implies 
 violence. In Mark 4. 37, John 6. 18, Revelation 
 6. 13, where ai/e/io? does refer to a violent wind, 
 the violence is expressed not by avepos but by 
 the qualifying word yae^a? : whereas on the 
 other hand, in Mark g. 20, Luke 9. 39, Acts 8. 7, 
 where violence is indicated, jrvev^a occurs with 
 no such qualification. Hence it may surely be 
 inferred that in the Greek of the New Testament, 
 Trvevfjia does not necessarily imply gentleness, nor 
 ai/e/io<? violence, and that had wind been intended 
 in the beginning of John 3. 8, cive/ios rather than 
 TTvev/jba would have been the word employed ; 
 similarly as is the case in the Septuagint version 
 of the eleventh of Ecclesiastes, where nil is repre- 
 sented by ai/e/io? in the fourth verse, and by Trvevjjia 
 in the fifth, a distinction which the Vulgate and the 
 English version of 1611 correctly reproduce. 
 
 Wind as the translation of irvev^a may possibly 
 here have had its origin in a confounding of the 
 TTvevfjia with the <f)(ovij, and treating the two as if 
 they were identical, as Alford does where, as already 
 quoted, he says of the Trvev/ma, N it is heard, not felt" 
 Yet the irvev^a and the voice of the Trvev^a are 
 quite distinct from each other ; and it is not the 
 Trvevfia but the -voice, that one is said to hear. 
 Now, though TO TTi/eO/ia is not synonymous with o 
 az/e/io?, yet the wind may quite well be included 
 in the expression, rrjv (jxovqv avrov arcoveis : for as
 
 The Course of the Wind. 9 
 
 the roar of thunder and the loud-sounding noise of 
 the ocean may be called the voice of the Almighty 
 (Psalm 29), so likewise the wind may be described 
 as the voice of the Spirit, brooding over the face 
 of the waters (Genesis I. 2), and breathing in the 
 gentle breeze, and in the stormy hurricane. 
 
 It may be further observed that the phrase OTTOU 
 #eXet precludes TO Trvevpa from denoting the wind. 
 The verb 6e\eiv occurs above two hundred times in 
 the New Testament, and except very rarely, as in 
 Acts 2. 12, where its import resembles that of the 
 English auxiliary verb will, it expresses a mental 
 act of desire, volition, or determination, proceeding 
 from an agent capable of wishing, willing, and 
 determining. Hence OTTOV 6e\ei in John 3. 8 may 
 be illustrated by the nearly synonymous expres- 
 sion KaOox; (SovXerat in I Corinthians 12. 11, TO 
 7Tvevfj.a being the subject of each verb. 
 
 Still further, apart from the modern researches 
 and discoveries of meteorology, the language of 
 Holy Scripture refutes the idea that the statement 
 ^Thou knowest not whence ep^erat and whither 
 vTrdyei* can refer to the wind. So far from the 
 movements and directions of the wind being 
 unknown, the Scriptures represent them as well 
 known and easily traced : Job I. 19, Psalm 18. 10, 
 Ecclesiastes I. 6, Ezekiel 37. 9, Luke 8. 23. But 
 it is very different with the movements of the 
 Spirit ; John 3. 8 being illustrated by Ecclesiastes 
 II. 5, s Thou knowest not what is the way of the 
 spirit*' 77 oSo? TOU Trvev/jLaros as in the Septua- 
 gint ; which, however, has rrjpatv avepov in verse 4,
 
 io The Way of the Spirit. 
 
 the one verse being argumentatively quite distinct 
 from the other. Dean Plumptre, who prefers spirit 
 to wind in both Ecclesiastes n. 5 and John 3. 8, 
 says, in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes (u. 5), 
 
 s The growth of the human embryo was for the early observers 
 of nature an impenetrable mystery. It became yet more mysterious 
 when men thought of life, with all its phenomena of sensation and 
 consciousness entering into the material structure thus "fearfully 
 and wonderfully made." This sense of the word agrees, it will be 
 seen, with its use in chapters 3. 21, 12. 7 ... The sentence 
 [ll. 5] should run thus, describing not two distinct phenomena 
 but one complex fact, " as thou knowest not the way of the spirit 
 (the breath of life) how the framework of the body (literally the 
 bones . . .) is in the womb of her that is with child, even so 
 thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." * 
 
 In John 3. 8, Wiclif, following the Vulgate, 
 * Spiritus ubi vult spirat/ gives, "* The Spirit brethith 
 where he wole " ; and the Rhemish Version likewise 
 is here preferable both to the version of 161 1 and to 
 the Revised Version of 1 88 1 : s The Spirit breatheth 
 where he will ; and thou hearest his voice, but 
 thou knowest not whence he cometh or whither he 
 goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit." 
 
 The essential lesson of the verse may be thus 
 briefly stated, As is the Spirit in his mysterious 
 movements, so is every one who is begotten by 
 the Spirit. Yet the substitution of wind for 
 Spirit in the beginning of the verse breaks the 
 connection between TO Tri/eO/ia and rot) irvev^aro^, 
 thus destroying the point and pith of the Saviour's 
 words to Nicodemus, and obliterating the expres- 
 siveness of the figure by which he describes the 
 regeneration of His people.
 
 The Soul. 1 1 
 
 Further, the translating of 7n>ev/xa spirit in the 
 beginning as well as in the end of the verse, pre- 
 serves all that is contained in the verse as it stands 
 in the versions of 1611 and 1881, and is at the 
 same time far more richly expressive. It does not 
 exclude the reference to the wind, but includes 
 it in its fullest extent, while it at the same time 
 directs the reader beyond the wind to Him whose 
 voice the wind is, and who ^bringeth the wind 
 out of his treasuries/ Men hear the wind, and 
 ascertain its course, and see its consequences ; but 
 He who gives forth His voice in the wind continues 
 enshrined in unsearchable glory. His way is in 
 the sea : His path is in many waters : His foot- 
 steps are unknown. Men, therefore, know not 
 H whence he cometh, or whither he goeth." s Lo 
 he goeth by me/ says Job (9. 1 1), x but I see not ; 
 and he passeth on, but I perceive him not." 
 
 Soul 
 
 It is essential to accuracy that ^t%^ soul 
 should be pointedly distinguished, not only from 
 TTvevpa spirit, which it invariably is throughout 
 the Authorised Version, but also from 0)77 life. 
 Yet, while "fyv%y is correctly translated soul above 
 fifty times, there are about forty instances in 
 which it is translated life, to the obscuring of the 
 important psychological distinction between life 
 and soul, as illustrated by such passages as Psalm 
 66. 9, N Who holdeth our soul E?BJ in life D"n."
 
 1 2 Soul and Body. 
 
 In Matthew 16. 25-26, Mark 8. 35-37, Luke 12. 
 19-23, 1^1^77 is translated both j0/ and life, the 
 reasoning and the force of the argument being 
 (as in John 3. 8) destroyed thereby : 
 
 Matt. 1 6. 25-26. Whosoever will save his life 
 shall lose it ; and whosoever will 
 lose his life for my sake shall find 
 it : for what is a man profited if 
 he shall gain the whole world, and 
 lose his own soul ? 
 
 Luke 12. 19-23. Soul, . . . take thine ease, 
 eat, drink, and be merry. . . . Fool ! 
 this night thy soul shall be required 
 of thee. . . . Therefore I say unto 
 you, Take no thought for your life, 
 what ye shall eat, neither for the 
 body what ye shall put on : the life 
 is more than meat, and the body 
 is more than raiment. 
 
 This misleading diversity is left unaltered in the 
 Revised Version of Luke 12. 19-23, where also 
 the important relation of soul to body is thus 
 obliterated. In the two other passages the trans- 
 lating of tywxr) diversely life and soul is indeed 
 obviated. Yet the selection of life rather than 
 soul to represent ^v^rj weakens the force of the 
 Saviour's words about losing one's soul, and, be- 
 sides obliterating the important connection between 
 this and other passages where soul occurs, extends 
 the false uniformity between this passage and a
 
 Soul and Life. 1 3 
 
 multitude of others in which life correctly repre- 
 sents, not ^1^77, but ^wrj. 
 
 In Matthew 16. 26 and Mark 8. 36, forfeit Jits 
 life is surely a poor substitute for lose his soul', 
 and it is less true to the original. 
 
 The substitution of life for soul in certain 
 passages referring to Christ, besides not being 
 required by the English idiom, fails to do justice 
 to the human aspect of His mediatorial nature on 
 the one hand and to those divine attributes of 
 His which are included in the deeply expressive 
 term far) life on the other, as where He is called 
 The Life, the Bread of Life, the Prince of Life. 
 By an anthropomorphism the Hebrew K>SJ soul is 
 sometimes used even of God, as in Jeremiah 9. 8 (9), 
 and Amos 6. 8. Yet when the corresponding 
 Greek 'fyvyj) is used of the divine Redeemer, it 
 involves such an essential reference to His humanity 
 as requires it to be carefully distinguished from 
 co?7 D^n, which it cannot be if translated life. 
 This inaccurate translation also obscures the 
 important connection between some passages 
 and others in their common reference to the 
 sufferings and death of the Messiah, or in their 
 relation to one another in this particular thus, 
 
 Exodus 30. 12. Then shall they give every 
 man a ransom for his soul 
 unto the LORD. 
 
 Mark 10. 45. The Son of Man came ... to 
 give his life a ransom for 
 many.
 
 1 4 The Soul of the Good Shepherd. 
 
 Psalms 35. 4, 40. 14. . . . that seek after my 
 
 soul. 
 Psalm 38. 12. . . . that seek after my life. 
 
 Isaiah 53. 11. He shall see of the travail of his 
 soul, and shall be satisfied. 
 12. He hath poured out his soul 
 unto death. 
 
 Matthew 26. 38. My soul is exceeding sorrow- 
 ful even unto death. 
 
 John 12. 27. Now is my soul troubled. 
 
 r 
 
 John 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd: the 
 good Shepherd giveth his 
 life for the sheep. 
 
 1 7. I lay down my life that I might 
 take it again. 
 
 i John 3. 16. He laid down his life for us. 
 
 How much more clearly would an English reader 
 perceive and appreciate the psychology of the 
 Scriptures if the distinction between far) D"n life 
 and -Jfvxh K'SU sou ^ were represented with uniform 
 accuracy throughout the English Version ! 
 
 ''Jehovah Elohim formed man of dust from the ground, and 
 breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a 
 living soul/ Genesis 2. 7. 
 
 ^So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul : 
 the last Adam became a life-giving spirit/ i Corinthians 15. 45.
 
 Covenant. 1 5 
 
 II. Critical Dissertation 
 on S to, #77/0? with its Logical Sequence. 
 Covenant 
 
 THE noun SiaQijfcr), which occurs thirty-three 
 times in the New Testament, is translated covenant 
 twenty, and testament thirteen times. 
 
 Covenant 
 
 Luke i. 72 to remember his holy covenant. 
 Acts 3. 25 the covenant which God made with 
 
 our fathers. 
 
 Acts 7. 8 the covenant of circumcision. 
 Romans 9. 4 the glory, and the covenants, and 
 
 the giving of the law. 
 Romans u. 27 this is my covenant unto them 
 
 when I shall take away their 
 
 sins. 
 Ephesians 2. 12 strangers from the covenants of 
 
 promise. 
 Hebrews 12. 24 Jesus the mediator of the new 
 
 covenant. 
 Hebrews 13. 20 the blood of the everlasting 
 
 covenant. 
 
 Gal. 3. 15, 17 
 
 4 .24 
 
 Heb. 8. 6, 8, 9 twice, 10 
 9. 4 twice 
 
 10. 16,29. 
 
 Testament 
 
 Matthew 26. 28 ) 
 
 TIT i 94. f my blood of the new testament.
 
 1 6 Testament and Covenant. 
 
 > the new testament in my blood. 
 
 Luke 22. 20 
 
 1 Cor. II. 25 
 
 2 Cor. 3. 6 ministers of the new testament. 
 
 14 the reading of the old testament. 
 Hebrews 7. 22 ; 9. 15 twice, 16, 17, 20. 
 Revelation n. 19 the ark of his testament. 
 
 An attentive examination of these passages and 
 of the biblical use of SiaOrj/cr) may show that this 
 variation is unnecessary and inaccurate, and that 
 it obscures the scope and import of the original, 
 and the relation of some passages containing 
 SiaOr/Kiy to others. The arbitrariness of the 
 variation appears on comparing, for instance, 
 Hebrews 9. 4 and Revelation n. 19 with each 
 other. As the meaning of Siadij/crj in both 
 passages is obviously the same, BtaO^Kij ought to 
 be translated the same in both. Yet they stand 
 diversely thus, 
 
 Hebrews 9. 4 the ark of the covenant. 
 Revelation n. 19 the ark of his testament. 
 
 There is a similarly arbitrary variation in 
 dealing with the phrase TO alpa TT}? Siadijtcr)? : 
 Hebrews 9. 20 the blood of the testament. 
 10. 29 the blood of the covenant. 
 
 So likewise the Kpelrrovos Bia&rJK'r)*; of Hebrews 
 7. 22 is clearly identical with the Kpeirrovos 
 ^iadr)K^<i of 8. 6. Is it possible then to assign 
 any reason why these Greek words should be 
 diversely translated better testament in the first 
 passage, and better covenant in the second ? 
 
 Moreover, although the Biad^/crj mentioned in 
 Hebrews 9. 15, 20 is the same Starter) which is
 
 The Old Covenant. 1 7 
 
 mentioned in verse 4, yet this Biadijicr], correctly 
 called a covenant in verse fourth, is called a 
 testament in verses fifteenth and twentieth : 
 
 4 f the ark of the 15 the first testament. 
 
 J covenant ... 20 the blood of the 
 I the tables of the testament. 
 
 ^ covenant. 
 
 In several passages, SiaOijtcr) refers to the rva 
 or covenant which God established between him- 
 self and ancient Israel (Hebrews 8. 9), and which 
 could not have been a testament in the testamen- 
 tary sense of the term. In 2. Corinthians 3. 14 
 the Apostle Paul describes this covenant as r^9 
 TraXata? Siadijfcr)*?, the old covenant ; and in verse 6 
 he speaks of another covenant, which he calls 
 icaivfjs BiadtJK^, a new covenant. Yet, in 2. Cor- 
 inthians 3. 14, Hebrews g. 15, 18, 20, Revelation 
 ii. 19, the Authorised Version calls this ancient 
 Siadr/Kr) a testament ; whereas in Hebrews 8. 9 ; 
 9. 4, the same Siadijicr) is correctly designated 
 covenant. The new covenant also is rightly called a 
 covenants Hebrews 8. 6, 8, 10 ; 10. 16, 29 ; 12. 24 ; 
 13. 20 ; whereas in Matthew 26. 28, Mark 14. 24, 
 Luke 22. 20, i Corinthians 1 1. 25, 2 Corinthians 3. 6, 
 Hebrews 7. 22 ; 9. 15, it is called a testament. 
 
 It is indeed commonly admitted that in the 
 New Testament SiaOtftcr) means covenant almost 
 universally. Yet Hebrews 9. 16-17 is said to be a 
 clear and indubitable exception, and is adduced as 
 a passage in which BiaB^Kij must mean testament 
 in the ordinary testamentary sense of the word. 
 
 B
 
 1 8 Versions compared. 
 
 Accordingly, whereas in the Revised Version of 
 1 88 1, covenant has been appropriately substituted 
 for testament in eleven out of the thirteen 
 instances, testament is retained in Hebrews 9. 16, 17. 
 And even while the American Revision Committee 
 demur to the insertion of testament as an 
 alternative rendering in the margin of Galatians 
 3. 15, 17, Hebrews 7. 23 ; 8. 6, 8, 9, 10; 10. 16; 
 12. 24, they except from their disapproval Hebrews 
 9. 15-17, the following note being the Tenth in 
 the list of readings and renderings preferred by the 
 American Committee, and recorded by their desire 
 at the end of the Revised Version of the New 
 Testament : Let the word "testament" be every- 
 where changed to " covenant " (without an 
 alternate in the margin), except in Hebrews 
 ix. 15-17." The following are the two English 
 Versions of Hebrews 9. 15-20 : 
 
 Version of 1 6 1 1 . Version of 1 8 8 1 . 
 
 15 And for this cause he is 15 And for this cause he is the 
 the mediator of the new testa- mediator of a new covenant, 
 ment, that by means of death, thatadeathhavingtaken place 
 for the redemption of the trans- for the redemption of the 
 gressions that were under the transgressions thatwereunder 
 first testament, they which are the first covenant, they that 
 called might receive the promise have been called may receive 
 of eternal inheritance. the promise of the eternal in- 
 
 16 For where a testament 16 heritance. For where a tes- 
 is, there must also of necessity tament is, there mustofneces- 
 be the death of the testator. sity be the death of him that 
 
 17 For a testament is of 17 made it. For a testament 
 force after men are dead : is of force where there hath 
 otherwise it is of no strength been death : for doth it ever 
 at all while the testator liveth. avail while he that made it 
 
 18 Whereupon neither the 18 liveth? Wherefore even the
 
 Death of Sacrificial Victims. 19 
 
 Version 0/1611. Version 0/1881. 
 
 first testament was dedicated first covenant hath not been 
 
 without blood. dedicated without blood. 
 
 19 For when Moses had spoken 19 For when every command- 
 every precept to all the people ment had been spoken by 
 according to the law, he took Moses unto all the people ac- 
 the blood of calves and of goats, cording to the law, he took 
 with water, and scarlet wool, the blood of the calves and 
 and hyssop, and sprinkled both the goats, with water and 
 the book, and all the people, scarlet wool and hyssop, and 
 
 20 Saying, This is the blood of sprinkled both the book itself, 
 the testament which God hath 20 and all the people, saying, 
 enjoined unto you. This is the blood of the 
 
 covenant which God com- 
 manded to you-ward. 
 
 It is surely apparent that in the words here 
 quoted from Exodus 24. 8, Moses meant not a 
 testament which had become effectual through 
 the death of the testator, but the covenant mart 
 established by God between himself and Israel, 
 as mentioned in Exodus 19. 5 ; 34. 27, Deuteronomy 
 5. 2, Hebrews 8. 9. The only death in this case 
 was the death of the sacrificial victims, namely 
 the oxen of the burnt-offerings and peace-offer- 
 ings mentioned in Exodus 24. 5, or, as detailed in 
 Hebrews 9. 19, the calves and the goats. In no 
 sense of the word could these be called a testator. 
 And even as to the Kaivf} Siad^Ktj, the new covenant, 
 it must be noted that its author was the author of 
 the old covenant, namely Jehovah, the God of 
 Israel (Jeremiah 31. 31-34, Hebrews 8. 8-10), Jesus 
 being, not the author, but the mediator of the new 
 covenant (Hebrews 8. 6 ; 9. 15 ; 12. 24), similarly 
 as Moses was mediator of the old covenant 
 (Galatians 3. 19).
 
 2O Revised Version of 1881. 
 
 Now the fact that God is the author of the 
 ^LaOrfKT], in the sense in which a testator is the 
 author of his own testament, precludes the idea of 
 the Siad^Kfj being made effectual by the death of 
 its author, and stamps the testamentary theory 
 with absurdity on the very face of it. Hence the 
 substitution of covenant for testament in Hebrews 
 9. 15, 20, as revised, is a change in the right 
 direction. Yet it renders the incongruity of 
 testament in the intervening verses 16, 17 all the 
 more obvious, and suggests the question whether 
 it can be possible for Stad^Ktj in these two verses 
 to have so incoherently exceptional a meaning. 
 The difficulty is not solved or met by the marginal 
 note in the Revised Version, ""The Greek word 
 here used signifies both covenant and testament* 
 For the question at once arises, Can SiadrJKii 
 possibly signify testament in verses 16, 17 when 
 it must signify covenant in verses 15 and 20, as 
 well as in every other passage of the New Testa- 
 ment and the Septuagint? 
 
 Alford, in pleading for the testamentary theory, 
 does indeed mention as analogous to the case in 
 question the well-known fact that the naturalised 
 English word testament as applied to the two 
 parts of the Bible has the technical meaning of 
 book ; and he adds, H We do not therefore sink the 
 other and deeper meaning/ Yet it is scarcely 
 conceivable that in a sound homogeneous argu- 
 ment the word testament could be used in both 
 senses, similarly as SiaOij/cv) is said to be in 
 Hebrews 9. 15-20. The case is different from
 
 Congruity in Argument. 21 
 
 that of nn in Ecclesiastes n. 4, 5, where, as is 
 already observed in page 9, the fifth verse has 
 no argumentative connection with the fourth. 
 Just as ofyyeXo? includes both angel and human 
 messenger, so likewise, as is clearly brought out 
 in the Septuagint and in the English Bible of 
 1611, mi here includes both ai/e/xo? and Trvevpa: 
 N He that observeth the wind shall not sow ; and 
 he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap. As 
 thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, . . . 
 even so thou knowest not the works of God, who 
 maketh all." In the ninth of Hebrews, however, 
 it is essential to the drift and coherence of the 
 argument that there be coincidence and identity 
 in the scope and signification of Biadij/cr) as used 
 throughout the chapter. 
 
 The great principle stated in verses 16, 17 about 
 the SiadiJKTj in its relation to the SiaOefievos is 
 exemplified by the history of God's ancient 
 covenant with Israel as set forth in verses 18-20 ; 
 and the connection between that old covenant and 
 the new covenant is described in verse 15. Hence 
 the argument would be vitiated if 8tadr']Kij in these 
 verses were employed in the two different senses 
 assigned to it. As in verses 15 and 20 Biad^/cr) 
 unquestionably refers to the ancient JVO or 
 covenant of Exodus 24, so in verses 16 and 17 
 Biadij/cr} must bear the meaning of nna, in accord- 
 ance with the import of odev, which is the con- 
 necting link between 16-17 and 18-20. Alford, in 
 his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 labours hard to reconcile the testamentary theory
 
 22 Dean AlforcCs Arguments. 
 
 with the reference to the old Mosaic covenant. 
 He thus argues on verse 16, 
 
 N It is quite in vain to attempt to deny the testamentary sense of 
 
 SiaOriKr) in this verse. Many have made the attempt 
 
 SiaOriK'rj, from diariOtvai, ' disponere? SiariOeffOai, ' disponere sibi ' 
 regards, in ordinary Greek usage, that disposition of a man's 
 property which he makes in prospect of his death, and signifies 
 a -will or testament. So in Plato and Demosthenes. . . . On the 
 other hand, the word is by no means tied to this its more usual 
 meaning. The general one, of a disposition of any kind, is some- 
 times found applied to other circumstances than those at the close 
 of life. So Aristophanes, Aves 439, where it evidently means a 
 covenant, an agreement. And in this sense ... do we find the 
 word most often used in the LXX and New Testament. The 
 other sense, that of a disposition or ordinance made by God irp6s 
 TWO., or /j.erd TWOS, is the most ordinary one in the LXX. To it 
 may be referred almost all the passages where, in a loose sense 
 of the word, we in English render covenant: e.g. Gen. vi. 18, 
 ix. 9, xv. 18; and a hundred other places. . . . Now, having 
 these three leading senses of the word before us, we are to enquire 
 which of them our writer is likely to have intended when he wrote 
 as a general axiom, STTOU SiaB-^Kri, Qa.va.-rov avayKt] <j>{pea0ai rov 
 8ta.0efi.frov. . . . Only when we recur to sense (i), that of a testa- 
 ment, can it be true, that where a SiaBriK-rj is, there must of neces- 
 sity be death, and that, the death roD Scafe/u^cov, of him who has 
 
 made the testament I believe then it will be found 
 
 that we must at all hazards accept the meaning testament 
 here, as being the only one which will in any way meet 
 
 the plain requirements of the verse It is much 
 
 disputed how the logic of this passage can cohere : seeing that, 
 how properly soever the latter SiaGriK-r) may be spoken of and 
 argued on as being a testament, the former one could have no 
 such character, and consequently cannot be thus argued on. . . . 
 The matter seems to stand thus. The word diaBrjKT) has the double 
 sense of a covenant and a testament. Both these senses may be 
 applied to both 8ia.0iJKai : 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. . . . The testator was im- 
 perfectly, but still was formally represented by the animals slain 
 in sacrifice : there was a death, there was a sprinkling of and
 
 The Inheritance. 23 
 
 sealing by blood. ... 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." 
 
 Here however the word bequeathed in its testa- 
 mentary sense is incompatible with the actual 
 circumstances of the case. Jesus indeed, in Luke 
 22. 29, says to his disciples, Kayon Biarldefjuai, vfj.lv, 
 Ka0(i><$ Siedero fj,oi 6 irarrfp fjiov, ftacrC\.iav. Yet so 
 far is the idea of death from entering into the 
 conception of this appointment, that it is positively 
 excluded both by the fact that Jesus attributes the 
 act expressed by the verb SiarWevai to God the 
 Father as well as to himself, and by the other fact 
 that he speaks of himself in such a way as to 
 show that he is referring, not to the sufferings and 
 death of his first advent, but to the deathless glory 
 of his second advent. So far was the idea of a 
 bequest taking effect at death from entering into 
 the case, that the promised inheritance was a 
 kingdom in which the receivers of it would sit 
 with their divine Master at his table in his king- 
 dom a circumstance utterly incompatible with 
 the idea of a bequest accruing through the death 
 of the testator. Further, the Father gives the 
 inheritance in the sense of ^iariOevat,, as fully and 
 really as the Son gives it, so that N the death of the 
 testator" in this connection also is simply impos- 
 sible. Indeed, the bestowing of the inheritance is 
 primarily and pre-eminently, though not exclu- 
 sively, the act of the Father, i Peter I. 3-4, Acts 
 20. 32; 26.18, Ephesians I. 3-12, Colossians 1.12-13;
 
 24 Testators and Beqiiests. 
 
 and it is through an essentially different connec- 
 tion that the death of the Son is brought in. It 
 is thus brought in, not as the death of a testator, 
 but as the death of a sacrificial victim, loving the 
 church and giving himself for her not that he 
 may thereby bequeath an inheritance to her, but 
 that, in ^the power of an endless life," he may 
 redeem her to tiimse/f (Ephesians 5. 25-27). 
 
 Indeed, the idea of the death of a testator as 
 essential to the constituting or ratifying or giving 
 validity to a SiaOij/cr), and thus making it /3e/3aia, 
 is foreign to the Scriptural use of the word 
 ^LadriKT], The BiaOrj/cat spoken of in the Septuagint 
 and in the New Testament in connection with 
 death were covenants in the making or sealing of 
 which sacrifices were offered ; and the deaths w r ere, 
 not deaths of testators, but the deaths of the 
 sacrificial victims. 
 
 Although in classical usage SiaO^/cy sometimes 
 denotes, as expressed in the Lexicon of Liddell 
 and Scott, "* a disposition of property by will, a will 
 and testament* this meaning is (as already shown 
 in page 20) impossible and absurd in Hebrews 
 9. 15-20. Alford's statement that the testator 
 was represented by the animals slain in sacrifice, 
 so far from giving even plausibility to the 
 testamentary theory, does but illustrate how 
 strained and incongruous the theory is. Not even 
 ""typically" was there a bequest in the sacri- 
 ficial inauguration of the ancient BiaOiJK'r). Nor yet 
 was there a bequest in the sacrificial inauguration 
 of the new Siadrj/cr), the Saviour's death being the
 
 The Testamentary theory. 25 
 
 death not of a testator but of One who was both 
 the priest and the sacrificial victim, giving his 
 soul to God as His people's ransom, and thus, not 
 bequeathing an inheritance to them, but redeeming 
 them to himself and. to the Father. 
 
 The testamentary theory, as explaining Hebrews 
 9. 16-17, is alien to the usage of the Septuagint 
 and the New Testament. Where a testament, or 
 something akin to a testament in the testamentary 
 sense of the word, is referred to, it is not called 
 either 8ia6)JKrj or ms- Thus, for instance, the 
 word iva or Bia0jJKr) is not used to designate 
 Isaac's blessing of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 
 27 and 28, or Jacob's blessing of Joseph and his 
 sons in 48, or his own sons in 49, or Joseph's 
 charge to his brethren and the relative oath which 
 he exacted from them in 50. 24-25, or David's 
 dying charge to Solomon in i Kings 2. And 
 although Joshua, on the eve of his death, made a 
 nn2 with the people, 24. 25, it had not the nature 
 of a testament, and the validity of it was in no 
 \vay dependent on his death. Conversely, where 
 death is associated with a BiadiJK^ or jvo, the 
 death is invariably the death of a sacrificial victim 
 or victims, and in no case the death of a testator. 
 Further, the death spoken of in Hebrews 9. 16-17 
 is not any kind of death, but specifically and 
 exclusively death by the shedding of blood : 
 N Where a BiadrJKr] is, there must of necessity be 
 brought in the death of the SiaOefjLevos. . . . 
 Wherefore even the first [Siadtj/crj] was not 
 inaugurated without blood." Now the unten-
 
 26 The Speaker s Commentary. 
 
 ableness of the rendering in the revised version of 
 this passage is surely apparent at a glance : s there 
 must of necessity be the death of him that made 
 it." Who made the first StadiJKr] ? Only one 
 answer is possible : Jehovah made it, and He 
 made it in circumstances which preclude the very 
 idea of N the death of him that made it" The 
 absurdity cannot be got rid of by pointing to the 
 death of the beasts slain in the relative sacrifice. 
 They were in no sense of the word makers of the 
 covenant ; nor yet did they typically represent 
 s him that made it/ They represented, not the 
 maker or author, but the /ieo-iV?;? or mediator and 
 sacrificial victim of the new covenant. 
 
 Dr. Kay, in the Speaker's Commentary on the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, thus shows briefly and 
 cogently the ineptitude of the testamentary 
 theory, 
 
 Mt is evident from x. 15-17 that the passage which has been 
 quoted from Jeremiah dominates the whole discussion in chapters 
 viii x. The use of the term "Mediator" of itself shews that 
 we have here to do with the Hebrew idea of a "covenant," 
 not with the Roman idea of a " testament." A mediator is the 
 proper guardian of a covenant (Galatians iii. 15-20), but has no 
 place in regard to a testament. Neither again does the death of 
 a testator possess any of the sacrificial character which is referred 
 to in verses 15-22. . . . To speak of "transgressions under a testa- 
 ment " (verse 15) 'is to join together incongruous ideas : whereas 
 Israel is often said to have "transgressed" God's "covenant." 
 Deuteronomy xvii. 2, Jeremiah xxxiv. 18, Hosea vi. 7, viii. I/ 
 
 The use of SiaOtj/cij throughout the New 
 Testament as equivalent to rvna of the Old 
 Testament is amply sufficient to explain the 
 scope and signification of Stad-ij/crj and its cognate
 
 Covenants. 2 7 
 
 6 Siadefievos in Hebrews 9. 16-17, and the precise 
 import of the writer's argument. Besides personal, 
 social, and secular covenants between man and 
 man, such, for instance, as the covenant between 
 Joshua (9. 6-15) and the Gibeonites, and the 
 covenant between King Solomon and Hiram, 
 King of Tyre (i Kings 5. 12 (Hebrew Bible 26), 
 Amos i. 9), there might be even religious or 
 divinely enjoined covenants, such as Circumcision 
 (Genesis 17, Acts 7. 8), without the shedding of 
 sacrificial blood, or the offering of a sacrificial 
 victim. Often however and pre-eminently in 
 such covenants between God and His people as 
 that of Exodus 24, referred to in Hebrews 9. 
 18-20 the making of the covenant was intimately 
 associated with sacrifice. The very first passage 
 where rv~Q, and in the Septuagint SiadiJKij, occurs 
 is the narrative of God's covenant with Noah, as 
 described in Genesis 8-9. It was when Noah built 
 an altar, and sacrificed burnt-offerings on it, and 
 Jehovah smelled a savour of rest that He said, 
 "* Behold, I establish my covenant with you." Still 
 more explicit in its sacrificial details is Genesis 15, 
 where the Lord makes a covenant with Abram, 
 and, in so doing, causes a lamp of fire, apparently 
 the Shekinah, representing the divine presence, to 
 pass between the pieces into which the sacrificial 
 victims had been divided. This has a remarkable 
 counterpart in Jeremiah 34. 18, where the Lord 
 refers to transgressors against his covenant, who 
 had not performed the words of the covenant 
 which they made before him H when they cut the
 
 28 Sacrificial Blood. 
 
 calf in twain, and passed between the parts 
 thereof. 
 
 Now it may be specially observed in connection 
 with such prominent passages as these, in which 
 JVna covenant is closely associated with sacrifice, 
 that the only covenants mentioned in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews are the new and better covenant, 
 of which Jesus is the mediator, and the old Mosaic 
 covenant, which was the type and pioneer of the 
 new. One of the essentials of each of these 
 covenants was the shedding of sacrificial blood, 
 and the offering of the relative sacrifice. What 
 gave importance and value to the shedding of the 
 blood and the offering of the sacrifices in the 
 inauguration of the old covenant was the divine 
 greatness of the covenant, and the still greater 
 greatness of the new covenant of which the old 
 covenant was the pioneer and emblem, and by 
 which it should afterwards be superseded. The 
 death of the sacrificial victims in the 24th ot 
 Exodus was thus notable because it symbolised 
 or typified the death of Him who should be both 
 priest and victim, bearing our sins in His own 
 body on the tree, and thus putting away sin by 
 the sacrifice of himself. His death was essential 
 to his work as Redeemer, Mediator, Saviour ; and 
 it was with primary reference to his one great 
 sacrifice, and to the shedding of His Blood of the 
 new covenant as the price of His people's redemp- 
 tion, that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 declared, s where a StaOijKrj is, there must of 
 necessity be brought in the death of the Stade-
 
 The Blood of the Covenant, 29 
 
 yu,ei/o? : for a Siadrffcr) is of force eVt, i/epot? (over 
 dead ones), whereas it availeth nothing while the 
 Sia0efj,vo<; liveth." This is not asserted, in a ^general 
 axiomatic sense," of all SiaOrjKat in the testa- 
 mentary meaning of the word, or in any meaning 
 of it. The words OTTOV yap Sia6i]fcr) no more refer 
 to every SiaOrj/cij than do the words OTTOV TO o-co/zo. 
 in Luke I/. 37 refer to every <r<w/z,a. The reference 
 is to those BiaQrjtcai of which the writer is speaking. 
 They are two in number, and are described in 
 the fourth of Galatians, where in verse 24 the 
 Apostle Paul mentions Bvo Siadfjfeai, two covenants. 
 These are the new covenant, and the old covenant 
 by which the new was prefigured. The well- 
 known expression blood of the covenant, which is 
 used with reference to both covenants, refutes the 
 assertion that the statement in Hebrews 9. 16-17 
 is inapplicable to a covenant, for it clearly implies 
 that the covenant was constituted by means of 
 death. And what is thus implied by this deeply 
 significant phrase in Exodus 24. 8, Zechariah 
 
 9. 11, Matthew 26. 28, Mark 14. 24, Hebrews 9. 20 ; 
 
 10, 29; 13. 20, is expressly declared in Hebrews 
 9. 16-17. Then follows, in verses 18-20, the ancient 
 exemplification of this great doctrine, in the 
 inauguration of the old covenant. And the writer 
 immediately adds in further elucidation of his 
 theme, ^And both the tabernacle and all the 
 vessels of the ministry he sprinkled likewise 
 with the blood. And almost all things are 
 purified with blood according to the Law ; and 
 without shedding of blood there comes no re-
 
 30 Covenants made over Sacrifice. 
 
 mission." Surely it is evident from an attentive 
 survey of the whole passage that it contains 
 no reference to a testator or to the making of a 
 testament, and that SiaO^/ci], wherever it occurs 
 in the chapter, must mean simply covenant. 
 
 Further, seeing that the only dead ones in the 
 inaugurating of the old or first covenant were 
 the beasts in sacrifice, it follows that they con- 
 stituted the SiaOefjievos of that covenant, similarly 
 as Jesus was the 8ia6efievo<; of the new cove- 
 nant the participle Siade/juevos being used, not 
 with the active signification of testator, but with 
 a reflexive or passive import. Accordingly, with 
 the aid of the supplementary word victim, the 
 term 6 Siade^evos, found nowhere else in the 
 New Testament, nor apparently in the Septua- 
 gint, may be explained as denoting the covenant 
 victim. And the specific import of eVt, in the 
 phrase eVl vetcpols, may be illustrated by the 
 prepositions ^y and eVt in the Hebrew original 
 and the Septuagint version of such passages as 
 Leviticus 16. 21, Deuteronomy 21. 6, Psalm 50. 5. 
 The two words eVt vefcpols literally signify upon or 
 over dead ones obviously not dead testators, but 
 dead sacrificial victims, through the shedding of 
 whose blood the Biad^K^ became /3e/3aia. That 
 this is the import of eVt vetcpols may be proved 
 from the Septuagint version of Psalm 50. 5, 
 where, however, there is somehow a change from 
 the first person of the Hebrew original, to the third: 
 " Gather together to him his saints, those who have 
 entered into covenant with him over sacrifices " :
 
 The New Covenant. 
 
 SiartOe/jLevovs rrjv 
 Hebrews 9. 17. Stadij/crj <yap eVt ve/cpols (3ef3aia. 
 
 Here the phrase eVt 6v<rtais corresponds to the 
 eVt ve/cpols of Hebrews 9. 17, eVl Ovaiais designat- 
 ing the sacrificial victims by means of which 
 God's oa-ioi entered into covenant with Him, and 
 eVt vetcpols designating the sacrificial victims by 
 means of which such a covenant becomes /3e/3am. 
 
 Accordingly Hebrews 9. 16-17 may be para- 
 phrased somewhat thus, with the view of expound- 
 ing its precise import, and showing that SiaQepevos 
 and StadriKT) contain no reference whatever to a 
 testator or to his testament, but refer simply to 
 the two covenants and the sacrificial victims over 
 which (eVt veicpols) they were inaugurated. 
 
 Paraphrase 
 
 So intimately is the shedding of sacrificial 
 blood associated with the two covenants spoken 
 of throughout this Epistle, that it may be said 
 whether of the Old Covenant, inaugurated with 
 the blood of calves and goats, or of the New 
 Covenant, inaugurated with the precious blood of 
 Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without 
 spot that the covenant is founded on the death 
 of 6 StaOefjievos, the victim sacrificed in the 
 making of it. Hence, as in ancient times 
 whether in the case of God's covenant with Noah, 
 or with Abram, or with Moses and the children 
 of Israel the covenant came into force over the 
 dead bodies of the beasts whose blood was shed 
 (13. 11) and sprinkled, so now the New Covenant
 
 32 Communion with God. 
 
 hath come into force through the death of Him 
 who bore our sins in His own body on the tree. 
 Through His death the covenant was thus con- 
 stituted and established as it could not have been 
 while He, the covenant victim (6 SiaOe/jievos), was 
 alive, and ere He The Living One became dead 
 (eyevo/jujv ye/cpo?, Revelation I. 18). Accordingly 
 He made peace though the blood of His Cross, and 
 became the Mediator and Surety of the new and 
 better covenant. He hath thus reconciled us to 
 God in the body of His flesh through His death, 
 so as to present us holy and without blemish and 
 unreproveable in His sight. In this way we have 
 been brought into the bond of the covenant, and 
 exalted to the freedom of the glory of the children 
 of God. Accordingly in our happy communion 
 with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, 
 God has given a glorious fulfilment to His ancient 
 proclamation, N Gather unto me my saints them 
 who have made a covenant with me over sacrifice." 
 
 Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to Her Majesty, 
 at the Edinburgh University Press.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000064045 8