Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Because of the nature of spiritual pride, it is the most secret of all sins. There is no other matter in which the heart is more deceitful and unsearchable and there is no other sin in the world that men are so confident in.
Please take a look at the Index Page to browse for posts.
Tags
1689 federalism
1689 Federalism
abraham
abrahamic
abrahamic covenant
augustine
baptism
baptist
bible
calvin
calvinism
christ
christianity
circumcision
congregationalism
covenant
covenant of grace
covenant of works
covenant theology
coxe
Decalogue
dispensationalism
economics
election
faith
federal vision
film
final judgment
free market
future justification
gordon clark
gospel
israel
israel as a type of the church
james white
jesus
john murray
john owen
john piper
john robbins
justification
kline
law
logic
mosaic
natural law
nct
new covenant
Old Covenant
old covenant
owen
paedobaptism
pink
piper
politics
preaching
predestination
psychology
R. Scott Clark
republication
Retroactive new Covenant
ron paul
sabbath
salvation
science
sin
spurgeon
substance/administration
theonomy
trinity foundation
two kingdoms
typology
union with Christ
visible/invisible church
works
Recent Posts
- Federal Vision Baptists?
- Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 7: R. Scott Clark
- Muller on the Reformed History of Gal 3:17 (Translation & Interpretation)
- Do Presbyterians Have Regeneration Goggles?
- Re: New Geneva Podcast on Baptism
- Hodge on Owen’s Influence Over American Presbyterians
- John Ball on Salvation Prior to Christ’s Death
- Two Age Sojourner Podcast: Reformed Libertarianism & 1689 Federalism (Substance/Administration)
- Abraham not Moses?
- Hodge’s (Baptist) Understanding of the Visible/Invisible Church
Recent Comments
Nick on Federal Vision Baptists? | |
Jono Brooks on Federal Vision Baptists? | |
Jeramy Free on Federal Vision Baptists? | |
brandonadams on Federal Vision Baptists? | |
Jeramy Free on Federal Vision Baptists? | |
brandonadams on New Covenant Union as Mystical… | |
Simon on New Covenant Union as Mystical… |
Categories
- books (21)
- economics (21)
- film (25)
- health (16)
- news (8)
- photography (1)
- Podcasts (6)
- politics (46)
- recommended (1)
- Reformed Libertarian (39)
- theology (352)
- 1689 federalism (174)
- 20th Century Reformed Baptist View (5)
- abrahamic covenant (31)
- covenant of works (15)
- Davidic Covenant (1)
- dispensationalism (3)
- General (35)
- Leviticus 18:5 (16)
- NCT/Progressive Covenantalism (7)
- new covenant (31)
- old covenant (32)
- OPC Republication Report (5)
- typology (23)
- Westminster Federalism (25)
- baptism (53)
- calvinism (3)
- final judgment (16)
- John Owen (26)
- justification (25)
- sanctification (6)
- science (6)
- Specific Passages (19)
- two kingdoms (15)
- 1689 federalism (174)
- Uncategorized (45)
I Also Contribute To:
Blogroll
- CCEF
- Daniel's Place
- God’s Hammer
- Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Antelope Valley
- Illumination: MCTS Blog
- Particular Voices
- Pros Apologian
- Reformed Baptist Blog
- Reformed Baptist Fellowship
- Reformed Libertarian
- The Confessing Baptist
- The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
- The Sovereign Logos
- The Upper Register
Top Posts
- Federal Vision Baptists?
- Welcome
- Can R. Scott Clark be Truly Reformed?
- The False Gospel of Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministries
- Galatians 3:16
- Vitamin C 'til You Poop
- The Heidelblog's Monologue of Misrepresentation
- R. Scott Clark’s Inconsistent Hermeneutic
- James White doesn't know what 1689 Federalism is
- Neonomian Presbyterians vs Antinomian Congregationalists?
Currently Reading
RSS Feed
Archives
- December 2019 (1)
- July 2019 (1)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (6)
- February 2019 (4)
- January 2019 (4)
- December 2018 (7)
- November 2018 (1)
- October 2018 (1)
- September 2018 (2)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (2)
- May 2018 (2)
- February 2018 (1)
- January 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (5)
- November 2017 (3)
- October 2017 (3)
- September 2017 (4)
- August 2017 (5)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (6)
- May 2017 (7)
- April 2017 (15)
- March 2017 (4)
- February 2017 (14)
- December 2016 (3)
- November 2016 (2)
- October 2016 (8)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (1)
- July 2016 (2)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (4)
- April 2016 (4)
- March 2016 (2)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (5)
- December 2015 (2)
- November 2015 (3)
- October 2015 (8)
- September 2015 (5)
- July 2015 (8)
- June 2015 (2)
- May 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (8)
- March 2015 (5)
- February 2015 (3)
- January 2015 (4)
- December 2014 (2)
- November 2014 (3)
- October 2014 (12)
- September 2014 (8)
- August 2014 (1)
- July 2014 (1)
- June 2014 (3)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (3)
- March 2014 (2)
- February 2014 (6)
- January 2014 (2)
- November 2013 (3)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (4)
- August 2013 (5)
- July 2013 (5)
- June 2013 (4)
- May 2013 (5)
- April 2013 (4)
- March 2013 (11)
- February 2013 (7)
- January 2013 (6)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (4)
- October 2012 (2)
- September 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (4)
- July 2012 (6)
- June 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (4)
- March 2012 (3)
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (6)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (5)
- August 2011 (3)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (6)
- May 2011 (2)
- April 2011 (2)
- March 2011 (2)
- February 2011 (3)
- January 2011 (2)
- November 2010 (6)
- October 2010 (2)
- September 2010 (7)
- August 2010 (4)
- July 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (3)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (6)
- February 2010 (5)
- January 2010 (6)
- December 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (4)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (3)
- March 2009 (4)
- February 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (1)
- September 2008 (2)
- August 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (5)
- June 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (4)
- March 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (1)
- December 2007 (2)
- November 2007 (41)

Was disappointed that the commentator did not look at the old English use of “testament” (as it was the word of choice for Tyndale, and later, the AV). Maybe they had good reason?
From a legal dictionary: “testament” – agreement, binding agreement, contract, covenant, engagement, expression of conviction, formal declaration, legal will, promise, solemn agreement, solemn promise, testamentary declaration, testamentary decree, testamentum, will, writing
Merriam-Webster says (among other things) of “testament”:
archaic: a covenant between God and the human race /
a tangible proof or tribute /
an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death
And for “covenant” –
1) a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : compact
2) a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action
Pretty synonymous. And the passage does have the death of Testator Christ in view. We prefer the old paths without a better argument from Mr O’Brien.
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
{KJV}
LikeLike
If it’s synonymous, then why not use it consistently throughout the chapter, rather than changing words when the Greek stays the same?
And to say the passage has the death of the Testator in view is to beg the question. If translated as covenant, then what is in view is the death of the covenant breaker… thus Christ bearing the curse of covenant breaking, which fits the context much better.
LikeLike
[1] A good question. I know that translators (new & old alike) like to mix it up for variety’s sake and to give the semantic range of a Greek (or Hebrew) word.
[2] I get that too, though it seems the words are interchangeable, right? 🙂 We today just don’t hear “covenant” when we read “testament.”
I like the older word, too, because of v.17 ~ a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
This is true of a will or codicile, but not a covenant, which actually requires the covenanting parties to be alive in order to keep the covenant. But I am not arguing against the term “covenant,” of course.
Don’t want to strive about words to no profit…
Or, quarrel about words, which does no good {ESV}
LikeLike
1) Arbitrarily mixing it up isn’t a reason against translating it as covenant instead of testament or will. Clark noted that arbitrarily mixing it up between faith and belief causes unnecessary confusion.
2) The words clearly aren’t completely interchangeable, as you yourself argue when you say “this is true of a will but not a covenant”.
Furthermore, it’s not just changing the word, but the different translation would be a different sentence. Instead of “a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives” it would be:
So it’s not really a striving after words to no profit because each translation conveys a different meaning and thus a different way of understanding the relationship between the old and new covenants.
LikeLike
Or another translation would be:
LikeLike
I’ve revisited this, Brandon, and found Dr O’Brien’s book pulled by the publisher for plagiarism. http://www.eerdmans.com/Pages/Item/59043/Commentary-Statement.aspx
That may not affect his exegesis, or it may not.
But the passage makes infinitely more sense as the AV has it, as “consistency” renders silliness:
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
For where there is a covenant, there must also of necessity be the death of the covenanter.
For a covenant is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the covenanter lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”
Is any translation THAT “consistent”? No, it’s ridiculous.
Calvin & Gill are much more sound.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/hebrews/9.htm
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/hebrews-9-15.html
Thank you.
LikeLike