Exposition of Hebrews 6-10, Exegesis of chapter 9 · Exegesis of verses 16, 17 – Exegesis of verse 16
VER. XVI, XVII.
foreign.
foreign, Syr. foreign the death of him is declared, shewed, argued, or proved. Mors intercedat necesse est. Necesse est mortem intercedere. Ar. Necesse est mortem ferri; which is not proper in the Latine Tongue: however there is an emphasis in foreign, more than is expressed by intercedo. foreign, Syr. foreign, of him that made it; of the Testator. foreign, Syr. foreign in him that is dead, in mortuis; among them that are dead. foreign, vulg. confirmatum est; and so the Syriac: ratum est, more proper. foreign, Syr. foreign There is no use, profit or benefit in it. Ar. nunquam valet; quandoquidem nunquam valet; nondum valet; it is not yet of force.
For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be brought in the death of the Testator. For a Testament is firm (or ratified) after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force whil'st the Testator liveth.
There is not much more to be considered in these verses, but only how the Observation contained in them, doth promote and confirm the Argument which the Apostle insists upon. Now this is to prove the necessity and use of the death of Christ, from the Nature, Ends and Use of the Covenant, whereof he was the Mediator. For it being a Testament, it was to be confirmed with the death of the Testator. This is proved in these Verses from the Notion of a Testament, and the only use of it amongst men. For the Apostle in this Epistle doth argue several times, from such usages amongst men, as proceeding from the Principles of Reason and Equity, were generally prevalent among them. So he doth in his discourse concerning the assurance given by the Oath of God, Chap. 6. And here he doth the same from what was commonly agreed upon; and suitable unto the reason of things, about the nature and use of a Testament. The things here mentioned were known to all, approved by all, and were the principal means of the preservation of Peace and Property in Humane Societies. For although Testaments as unto their especial Regulation owe their original unto the Roman Civil Law; yet as unto the substance of them, they were in use amongst all Mankind from the foundation of the world. For a Testament is the just determination of a Man's Will concerning what he will have done with his Goods after his decease. Or, it is the Will of him that is dead. Take this power from men, and you root up the whole foundation of all industry and diligence in the world. For what man will labour to increase his substance, if when he dyes, he may not dispose of it unto those which by Nature, Affinity, or other obligations, he hath most respect unto? Wherefore the foundation of the Apostles arguing from this usage amongst men, is firm and stable.
Of the like nature is his observation, that a Testament is of no force whil'st the Testator liveth; the nature of the thing it self expounded by constant practice, will admit no doubt of it. For by what way soever a man disposeth of his Goods, so as that it shall take effect whil'st he is alive, as by Sale, or Gift, it is not a Testament, nor hath any thing of the nature of a Testament in it. For that is only the Will of a man concerning his Goods when he is dead.
These things being unquestionable, we are only to consider, whence the Apostle takes his Argument, to prove the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the Mediator of the New Testament.
Now this is not meerly from the signification of the word foreign, which yet is of consideration also, as hath been declared; but, whereas he treats principally of the two Covenants, it is the Affinity that is between a Solemn Covenant and a Testament, that he hath respect unto. For he speaks not of the death of Christ meerly as it was death, which is all that is required unto a Testament properly so called, without any consideration of what nature it is; but he speaks of it also as it was a Sacrifice by the effusion of his blood, which belongs unto a Covenant, and is no way required unto a Testament. Whereas therefore the word may signifie either a Covenant or a Testament precisely so called, the Apostle hath respect unto both the significations of it. And having in these Verses mentioned his death, as the death of a Testator, which is proper unto a Testament, in the 14th Verse and those that follow, he insists on his blood as a Sacrifice which is proper unto a Covenant. But these things must be more fully explained, whereby the difficulty which appears in the whole Context will be removed.
Unto the confirmation or ratification of a Testament, that it may be foreign, foreign.sure, stable, and of force, there must be death, the death of the Testator. But there is no need that this should be by blood, the blood of the Testator, or any other. Unto the consideration of a Covenant, blood was required, the blood of the Sacrifice, and death only consequentially, as that which would ensue thereon; but there was no need that it should be the blood or death of him that made the Covenant. Wherefore the Apostle declaring the necessity of the death of Christ, both as to the nature of it, that it was really death, and as to the manner of it, that it was by the effusion of his blood, and that from the consideration of the two Covenants, the Old and the New Testament, and what was required unto them, he evinceth it by that which was essential unto them both, in a Covenant as such, and in a Testament precisely so called. That which is most eminent and essential unto a Testament, is, that it is confirmed and made irrevocable by the death of the Testator. And that which is the excellency of a Solemn Covenant, whereby it is made firm and stable, is, that it was confirmed with the blood of Sacrifices, as he proves in the instance of the Covenant made at Sinai, v. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Wherefore whatever is excellent in either of these, was to be found in the Mediator of the New Testament. Take it as a Testament, which, upon the Bequeathment made therein of the Goods of the Testator unto the Heirs of Promise, of Grace and Glory, it hath the nature of, and he dyed as the Testator, whereby the Grant of the Inheritance was made irrevocable unto them. Hereunto no more is required but his death, without the consideration of the nature of it in the way of a Sacrifice. Take it as a Covenant, as upon the consideration of the Promises contained in it, and the Prescription of Obedience, it hath the nature of a Covenant, though not of a Covenant strictly so called; and so it was to be confirmed with the blood of the Sacrifice of himself, which is the Eminency of the Solemn Confirmation of this Covenant. And as his death had an Eminency above the death required unto a Testament, in that it was by blood, and in the Sacrifice of himself, which it is no way necessary that the death of a Testator should be, yet it fully answered the death of a Testator, in that he truly dyed; so had it an Eminency above all the ways of the confirmation of the Old Covenant, or any other Solemn Covenant whatever; in that whereas such a Covenant was to be confirmed with the blood of Sacrifices, yet was it not required that it should be the blood of him that made the Covenant, as here it was.
The consideration hereof solves all the appearing difficulties in the nature and manner of the Apostles Argument. The word foreign whereunto respect is here had, is, as we have shewed, of a large signification, and various use. And frequently it is taken for a free grant and disposition of things by promise, which hath the nature of a Testament. And in the Old Covenant, there was a free grant and donation of the Inheritance of the Land of Canaan unto the people, which belongs unto the nature of a Testament also. Moreover both of them, a Covenant and a Testament, do agree in the general nature of their confirmation, the one by blood, the other by death. Hereon the Apostle in the use of the word foreign, doth diversly argue both unto the nature, necessity and use of the death of the Mediator of the New Testament. He was to dye in the confirmation of it as it was a Testament, he being the Testator of it; and he was to offer himself as a Sacrifice in his blood, for the establishment of it, as it had the nature of a Covenant. Wherefore the Apostle doth not argue as some imagine, meerly from the signification of the word, whereby, as they say, that in the original is not exactly rendred. And those who have from hence troubled themselves and others about the Authority of this Epistle, have nothing to thank for it, but their own ignorance of the design of the Apostle, and the nature of his Argument. And it were well if we all were more sensible of our own ignorance, and more apt to acknowledge it, when we meet with difficulties in the Scripture, than for the most part we are. Alas! how short are our Lines, when we come to fathom the depths of it! How inextricable difficulties do appear sometimes in passages of it, which when God is pleased to teach us, are all pleasant and easie!
These things being premised, to clear the scope and nature of the Apostles Argument, we proceed unto a brief Exposition of the words.
VER. XVI.
For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Testator.
THere are two things in the words. (1) A Supposition of a Testament. (2) What is required thereunto.
In the first there is, (1) The Note of Inference. (2) The Supposition it self.
The first is the Particle, For. This doth not infer a Reason to ensue of foreign.what he had before affirmed, which is the common use of that Illative, but only the Introduction of an Illustration of it, from what is the usage of Mankind in such cases, on supposition that this Covenant is also a Testament. For then there must be the death of the Testator, as it is in all Testaments amongst men.
The Supposition it self is in those words, foreign, the Verb Substantive foreign.is wanting, [where a Testament is] so it is by us supplied, it may be, not necessarily. For the Expression of, where a Testament is, may suppose that the death of the Testator is required unto the making of a Testament; which, as the Apostle sheweth in the next Verse, it is not, but only unto its Execution. In the case of a Testament, namely, that it may be executed, is the meaning of the words, where; that is, wherever. Amongst all sorts of men, living according unto the light of Nature, and the conduct of Reason, the making of Testaments is in use. For without it neither can private Industry be encouraged, nor publick Peace maintained. Wherefore, as was before observed, the Apostle argueth from the common usage of mankind, resolved into the Principles of Reason and Equity.
2. What is required unto the Validity of a Testament, and that is the death of the Testator. And the way of the Introduction of this death unto the foreign.validity of a Testament is, by being brought in; foreign that it enter; namely, after the ratifying of the Testament to make it of force, or to give it operation. The Testament is made by a living man; but whil'st he lives, it is dead, or of no use. That it may operate and be effectual, death must be brought into the account.
This death must be the death of the Testator, foreign, is he who disposeth of things; who hath right so to do, and actually doth it. This in a Testament is the Testator. And foreign and foreign, have in the Greek the same respect unto one another, as Testamentum and Testator in the Latine.
Wherefore if the New Covenant hath the nature of a Testament, it must have a Testator, and that Testator must dye, before it can be of force and efficacy, which is what was to be proved.
This is further confirmed,