Testament

This word is very familiar to the reader of the Bible. Every one knows what is meant by the New Testament; but perhaps the peculiar blessedness of the name, seen with an eye to Christ, is not so richly and so fully enjoyed as it ought even by real believers. There is indeed a most precious savour in the word, when we have respect to it, as Jesus had to the symbols of his supper, when he called the sacred service "the New Testament in his blood."

A testament, in the common acceptation of the term, implies the last act and will of a person in disposing of his effects. So the apostle called it, Heb. ix. 15 - 17. Such therefore was the blessed act of Christ; and the gospel was called so because it contained the legacies and testamentary effects Jesus bequeathed to his church and people.

In respect to the term, New Testament, that was not added as if the contents of it differed from the Old; for in fact it became a fulfilment and confirmation of all that went before: every thing in the Old Testament was the shadow and type of the New. But the peculiar cause for calling it New was, as being newly accomplished and sealed by the blood of its almighty Author; and when first so called the Lord Jesus had but just shed his blood at Jerusalem. I cannot dismiss the subject, after thus explaining the meaning of the termitself, without calling upon the reader to remark with me how very precious the very name of the New Testament ought to be to every lover of the Lord Jesus, who by the regenerating influence of the Holy Ghost is conscious that he is interested in the contents of it. Reader! pause over the name - - "The New Testament in Christ’s blood, " Surely, I would say, Jesus by his death hath confirmed it, and made all the blessed legacies in it secure and payable. For as the Holy Ghost saith by Paul, "A Testament is of force after menaredead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Heb. ix. 17.) Shall we not enquire then what Jesus hath left, and to whom he hath left, his vast property? We know that all power is his in heaven and in earth; all blessings are his, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. And surely, it is worth enquiry after such durable treasure!

Now Jesus, before his departure, expressed himself to his disciples on this subject when he said, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you." (John 14. 27.) Hence therefore the legacies of Jesus are to his people, his disciples, his children. As men before they die make their wills, and give their property to their relations and friends, so the Lord Jesus did his. It is his church, his spouse, his offspring, which are by name mentioned in his will, and who alone are interested in it. Oh, for grace then to prove the Lord’s will in it.

Oh, for to lay claim to all the legacies contained in it! Am I married to the Lord, and hath Jesus bethrothed me to him for ever? Am I gathered out of nature’s darkness, and become a child of God by adoption and by grace? It is said, If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Am I a new creature, renewed by the Holy Ghost; and hath the Lord given me a new heart and a new mind, so that old things are passed away, and all things are become new? Oh! for the blessed discovery of these sure marks of a relationship to Christ, and in Christ; for then sure I am, that I have an interest in Christ’s will, and he that gave himself for me, hath given all blessings to me. And as he died to make his Testament valid, so he ever liveth to be the executor and administrator of his Testament, and to see the whole blessings of his will faithfully given to his whole Church and people. Hail thou glorious Testator of the New Testament in thy blood!

The property or estate of the father fell, after his decease, into the possession of his sons, who divided it among themselves equally, with this exception, that the eldest son had two portions. The father expressed his last wishes or will in the presence of witnesses, and probably in the presence of the heirs, 2Ki 20:1. At a more recent period the will was made out in writing. The portion that was given to the sons of concubines depended altogether upon the feelings of the father. Abraham gave presents, to what amount is not known, both to Ishmael and to the sons whom he had by Keturah, and sent them away before his death. It does not appear that they had any other portion in the estate. But Jacob made the sons whom he had by his concubines heirs as well as the others, Gen 21:8-21; Gen 25:1-6; Gen 49:1-27. Moses laid no restrictions upon the choice of fathers in this respect; and we should infer that the sons of concubines, for the most part, received an equal share with the other sons, from the fact, that Jephtha, the son of a concubine, complained that he was excluded without any portion from his father’s house, Jdg 11:1-7. The daughters not only had no portion in the estate, but, if they were unmarried, were considered as making a part of it, and were sold by their brothers into matrimony. If they had no brothers, or if they had died, the daughters then took the estate, Num 27:1-8. If any one died intestate, and without offspring, the property was disposed of according to Num 27:8-11. The servants or the slaves in a family could not claim any share in the estate as a right; but the person who made a will, might, if he chose, make them his heirs, Gen 15:3. Indeed, in some instances, those who had heirs, recognized as such by law, did not deem it unbecoming to bestow the whole or a portion of their estates on faithful and deserving servants, Pro 17:2. The widow of the deceased, like his daughters, had no legal right to a share in the estate. The sons, however, or other relations, were bound to afford her an adequate maintenance, unless it had been otherwise arranged in the will. She sometimes returned back again to her father’s house, particularly if the support which the heirs gave her was not such as had been promised, or was not sufficient, Gen 38:11. See also the story of Ruth. The prophets very frequently, and undoubtedly not without cause, exclaim against the neglect and injustice shown to widows, Isa 1:17; Isa 10:2; Jer 7:6; Jer 22:3; Eze 22:7; Exo 22:22-24; Deu 10:18; Deu 24:17.

[BIBLE]

In Scripture, usually signifies covenant, and not a man’s last will, Mat 26:28 . Both meanings are blended, however, in Heb 9:16-17 . Paul speaks of the New Testament, or covenant, in the blood of the Redeemer; and calls the law the old covenant, and the gospel the new covenant, 1Co 1:1-16:24 11:25 2Co 3:6,14 Heb 7:22 10:1-39 12:24. See BIBLE, and COVENANT.\par

(See COVENANT; HEIR; WILLS.)

See COVENANT, THE NEW.

TESTAMENT.—1. The Gr. word διαθήκη, translation ‘covenant’ Luk 1:72 Authorized Version , ‘testament’ Mat 26:28 || Mar 14:24, Luk 22:20 Authorized Version and (Revised Version margin) , is in Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 , ll. cc., uniformly ‘covenant.’ The last of these passages is bracketed by WH [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.] as a ‘very early interpolation.’ The word does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels. The rendering ‘covenant’ (wh. see) is unquestionably right: ‘testament’ has come from the Lat. Versions.

2. In classical literature διαθήκη denoted a will, and apparently nothing else (Ar. Av. 440, if an exception, is unique). A Greek will, however, was a settlement or trust-deed rather than a will in the Roman (i.e. the modern) sense. In it the conditions of inheritance were, indeed, in the first place at the sole discretion of the testator, but it was publicly and solemnly executed, and thereupon at once became absolute, irrevocable, and unalterable.

3. The LXX Septuagint translators adopted the word as the equivalent of the Heb. בְּרִית. The following considerations are supposed to have influenced their choice:—(a) διαθήκη represented essentially a ‘one-sided covenant,’ συνθήκη (the ordinary word) a mutual one; (b) διαθήκη was charged with religions ideas, inasmuch as the Greek will conveyed the religious institutions as well as the property of the family (cf. the similar case of the Hebrew ‘birthright’). It may possibly also have been used, in the popular spoken dialect, in a wider sense than that of a will (cf. διατίθεσθαι).

4. (a) The special reference in Luk 1:72 [= Psa 105:8 f.?] is to the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15, 17). (b) The words of Mat 26:28, Mar 14:24 [Luk 22:20] are plainly drawn from Exo 24:8. The addition of ‘new’ (Authorized Version , (Revised Version margin) ) in Mt. and Mk., ll.cc., has small MS authority, and is rejected in Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 text: it is due to 1Co 11:25. Yet the idea of a ‘new covenant’ had been the theme of OT prophets (cf. Jer 31:31 ff. etc.), and its application to the Christian covenant was in current use among the Apostles: the ‘old’ covenant in the implied contrast was the Mosaic not the Abrahamic (2Co 3:6, Heb 9:15 etc.), and the allusion to Exo 24:8 seems tacitly to suggest the same contrast here.

Literature.—Ramsay, Hist. Com. on Galatians, p. 349 ff.; Westcott, Hebrews, p. 298 ff.; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , artt. ‘Covenant,’ ‘Testament.’

F. S. Ranken.

See Wills.

TESTAMENT.—The word is not found in the OT. In the text of the RV [Note: Revised Version.] of the NT it occurs only twice (Heb 9:16 f.) and is used to translate the Gr. word diathçkç, elsewhere rendered ‘covenant’ (with ‘testament’ in the margin). In Heb 9:15-20 diathçkç is three times translated ‘covenant,’ and twice ‘testament.’ An indication of the difficulty involved in its interpretation is given in the marginal note: ‘The Greek word here used signifies both covenant and testament.’

In classical Greek diathçkç means ‘a testamentary disposition,’ and synthçkç ‘a covenant.’ The latter word connotes an agreement between two persons regarded as being on an equal footing (syn-); hence it is unsuitable as a designation of God’s gracious covenants with men. The LXX [Note: Septuagint.] therefore use diathçkç as the equivalent of the Heb. word for ‘covenant’ (bĕrîth), its most frequent application being to the Divine covenants, which are not matters of mutual arrangement between God and His people, but are rather ‘analogous to the disposition of property by testament.’ In the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] diathçkç was extended to covenants between man and man, but Westcott says: ‘There is not the least trace of the meaning “testament” in the Greek Old Test. Scriptures, and the idea of a “testament” was indeed foreign to the Jews till the time of the Herods’ (Com. on Hebrews, Additional Note on Heb 9:15).

In the NT ‘covenant’ is unquestionably the correct translation of diathçkç when it occurs ‘in strictly Biblical and Hebraic surroundings’ [see Covenant]. But, as Ramsay has pointed out, there was a development in the meaning of the word after the publication of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] . This development was ‘partly in the line of natural growth in Greek will-making, … partly in the way of assimilation of Roman ideas on wills’ (Hist. Com. on Galatians, p. 360). Therefore the question which the interpreter must ask is, ‘What ideas did the word convey to the first readers of the NT writings?’

The Revisers’ preference for ‘testament’ in Heb 9:16 f. is strongly confirmed by the fact that ‘the Roman will … appeared in the East as a document which had no standing and no meaning until after the testator’s death, and was revocable by him at pleasure.’ But whilst the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to those who knew only the Roman will, the Epistle to the Galatians was written at a time when in Hellenized Asia Minor ‘irrevocability was a characteristic feature’ of Greek will-making. The Galatian will had to do primarily with the appointment of an heir; no second will could invalidate it or ‘add essentially novel conditions.’ Such a will furnished St. Paul (Gal 3:15) with an analogy; like God’s word, it was ‘irrevocable.’ It might be supplemented in details, but ‘in essence the second will must confirm the original will’ (Ramsay, op. cit. p. 349 ff.).

In the NT, testamentum is the uniform Lat. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] of diathçkç. Frequently, therefore, it means ‘covenant’ (Luk 1:72, Act 7:3, Rom 11:27 etc.). This use of the Latin word is the explanation of the fact that, as early as the second cent of our era, the books of the Old and New Covenants were spoken of as the Old and New Testaments.

J. G. Tasker.

tes´ta-ment: The word διαθήκη, diathḗkē, almost invariably rendered “covenant,” was rendered in the King James Version “testament” in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, in the sense of a will to dispose of property after the maker’s death. It is not easy to find justification for the retention of this translation in the Revised Version (British and American), “especially in a book which is so impregnated with the language of the Septuagint as the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Hatch). See COVENANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

See Covenant.

The word testament is a derivation of the Latin word testamentum, which was used in Jerome’s Vulgate to translate the Hebrew word b’rith, covenant. The Greek equivalent is diatheke, which also means covenant. The word has come to be used in describing the two main divisions of the Bible: The Old Testament and The New Testament. It should be understood then, that the Bible is generally to be looked at as a covenant between God and man.