REFORMED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

COVENANT OR WILL/TESTAMENT:
AN EXAMINATION OF DIATHEKE IN HEBREWS 9:16-17

SUBMITED TO DR. SCOTT SWAIN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
COVENANT THEOLOGY ST 601

BY
GARRETT SPITZ
DECEMBER 4, 2015

THE ENGLISH TEXT OF HEBREWS 9:15-18 (ESV)

15

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant (diatheke), so that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred
that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant
(diatheke). 16 For where a will (diatheke) is involved, the death of the one who
made it must be established. 17 For a will (diatheke) takes effect only at death,
since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not
even the first covenant [implied diatheke] was inaugurated without blood.

INTRODUCTION: A DIVISIVE CRUX

The concept of diatheke is central in the book of Hebrews. Of the thirty-three references
to it in the New Testament, seventeen occur in Hebrews and fifteen of those are in chapters 710.1 The reason the term receives such specialized attention in Hebrews has to do with the
authors purpose, which is to compare the old order of things with the new.2
At a particularly climactic point in the authors theological argument in chapter 9 lay an
interpretative crux that has scholars sharply divided. In verses 15 through 18 the Greek word
diatheke is used four times and implied once. The crux relates to how it is translated in verses 16
and 17 specifically. Some translations and commentators interpret diatheke here as will or
testament.3 Others however interpret it consistently as covenant through the whole passage.4

Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 27.
Vos, Hebrews, 28
3
NEB, JB, TEV, NAB, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, ESV, Geerhardus Vos, Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke in Redemptive
History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin et al. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1980), 179-185; F.F. Bruce, The
Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 209-214; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (NIGNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 462-465; James Moffatt, The Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T, 1979), 127-130; Philip Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1977), 369-376; Richard Phillips, Hebrews (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006), 309-320; Simon Kistemaker,
Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 256-257; Harold Attridge, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (hermeneia; Philadephia: Fortress, 1989), 253-259; Scott Murray, The Concept of in the Letter
to the Hebrews, CTQ 66:1 (2002) 41-60; J.S. Wiid, The Testamental Significance of in Hebrews 9:1522, Neotestamentica 26:1 (1992) 149-156; James Swetnam, A Suggested Interpretation of Hebrews 9,15-18,
CBQ 27 (1965) 373-390; Behm, "," TDNT, 2. 131.
4
NASB, David Allen, Hebrews (NAC 35; Nashville: B&H, 2010), 477-482; Peter O Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews
(PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 329-333; William Lane, Hebrews 9-13 (WBC 47b; Dallas: Word Books,
1991), 226-252; Brooke Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 263-26; Gareth
2

The purpose of this paper is to argue in favor of the latter interpretation. While it is not without
its challenges, covenant is the best way to interpret diatheke in Hebrews 9:16-17.

REFUTING THE WILL/TESTAMENT ARGUMENT

Those who translate diatheke as covenant in verses 16 and 17 do so because they
believe that the words meaning here is consistent with its meaning in the Septuagint (LXX) and
elsewhere in Hebrews where it is clearly a reference to Gods covenant with Israel. 5 Those who
opt for a testament/will translation do so because they believe that the author is temporarily
breaking from his normal use of the word diatheke in order to make a play on words by bringing
into focus the contemporary, secular, and legal Hellenistic use of diatheke which refers to a legal
will or testament.6
There are several reasons why interpreters would be inclined to consider the
testament/will translation as a more viable option at first glance. The primary use of the term
diatheke in first century Hellenistic Greek was to refer to a last will or testament by which
someone could pass on their possessions to another upon their death.7 The authors use of
inheritance in verse 15 gives reason for interpreters to lean towards the testament/will

Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 404-407; George Guthrie, Hebrews
(NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 312-314; O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the
Covenants (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1980), 138-144; Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Eugene: Wipf and Stock,
2004), 47-48; Scott Hahn, A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15-22, CBQ 66
(2004) 416-436; John Hughes, Hebrews IX 15ff and Galatians III 15ff: A Study in Covenant Practice and
Procedure, NovT 21:1 (1979) 27-96; Lucy Lincoln, Translating Hebrews 9:15-22 in Its Hebraic Context, JOTT 12
(1999), 1-29; J. Ligon Duncan, III, The Covenant Idea in Ante-Nicene Theology, (Ph.D. diss., The University of
Edinburgh New College, 1995), 63-69.
5
OBrien, Hebrews, 328.
6
Allen, Hebrews, 478; Bruce, Hebrews, 210.
7
OBrien, Hebrews, 329.

conclusion.8 Proponents of this view also argue that in a will the testator must die before the will
is valid but that such a requirement of death is not required in a covenant.9 Wiid argues that there
is a universal quality in Hebrews 9:16-17 that more strongly supports the background of Greek
courts as opposed to the temple cultus.10 Attridge cites the other legal technical terms found in
the section as evidence that diatheke should also be understood in a legal way.11 It has also been
cited that the anarthrous use of diatheke in verse 16 should indicate a shift in meaning that is in
line with the authors fondness for wordplay.12 Finally, Swetnam argues that a testament/will
translation is essential if one is to achieve a proper understanding of the New Covenant in
Hebrews.13 While these arguments may seem convincing, they ultimately do not hold up.
While it is true that diatheke was used by first century Greeks to refer to a last will and
testament, it is much more likely that the author of Hebrews had in mind the meaning for
diatheke rooted in the LXX. The LXX translates the Hebrew term for covenant (berith) as
diatheke around 270 times.14 Since the focus of the author in Hebrews is to contrast the New
Covenant with the old, its readers would have the covenants of the Old Testament firmly in mind
as they interpreted verses 16 and 17. It would be unnatural for the author to suddenly jump to a
contemporary Hellenistic meaning and expect his readers to grasp it.
It should be noted how consistently diatheke is used elsewhere. Of the thirty three times
that the word is used in the NT, this would be the only place where it would be intended to mean
will or testament.15 It is also worth noting just how important the concept of diatheke as

Vos, Hebrews, 39.

Vos, Hebrews, 39.
10
Wiid, Testamental, 154.
11
Attridge, Hebrews, 253.
12
Ellingworth, Hebrews, 462; Allen, Hebrews, 478.
13
Swetnam, Interpretation, 374.
14
Allen, Hebrews, 479.
15
Allen, Hebrews, 479.
9

covenant is for the theology of Hebrews. It plays such a central role in the theology and logical
argument of the book that it would make little sense for the author to adjust the meaning in just
this one place for illustrative purposes. Robertson quotes Hatch as saying that there can be little
doubt that the word must be invariably taken in this sense of covenant in the New Testament
and especially in a book which is so impregnated with the language of the LXX.16
There is still that inheritance language present in verse 15 that seems to indicate that
the author might be briefly digressing from his normal usage of diatheke in order to use it to
make an analogy. Hughes states that the mention of the promised inheritance which is received
on the basis of the redeeming death of Christ suggests the analogy from everyday life of the
principle of inheritance, in accordance with which the provisions of a last will and testament
become effective only on the death of the testator.17 It is argued that this combined with the
authors reference to heir in Hebrews 1:2 should clue the reader into the authors intent to
make use of the terms secular meaning in Hebrews 9:16 and 17.18
Lincoln points out that the term for inheritance (kleronomia) used in verse 15 is actually
more appropriately translated as possession/allotment which would be consistent with the
Septuagint use of it to refer to that which has been promised to Gods chosen people.19 The term
only occasionally carried the secondary meaning of inheritance, heir, or inherit in
Septuagint usage.20
Furthermore, Robertson argues that the presence of the concept of inheritance should
not lead interpreters to settle on the testament/will translation because the idea of kleronomia

16

Robertson quoting Hatch, Essays, 48 in O. Palmer Robertson, Gods People in the Wilderness (Glasgow: Christian
Focus, 2009), 40.
17
Hughes, Hebrews, 368.
18
Allen, Hebrews, 478.
19
Lincoln, Translating, 15.
20
Lincoln, Translating, 13.

played a central role in the OT covenantal framework.21 In OT covenants the kleronomia was the
blessing of covenant obedience. In the covenants death was not a necessary prerequisite for
receiving the kleronomia; covenant faithfulness was. Instead, death represented the opposite of
the kleronomia. The point of the mention of inheritance is not to clue the reader into the
authors word play with diatheke but instead it is to explain how Jesus is the mediator who
enables Gods people to receive that which God promised to them in the old covenant.
The emphasis on a required death in verses 16 and 17 is what makes some scholars and
translators most confident of the testament/will interpretation.22 There are two main problems
with this argument however. Firstly, if the author of Hebrews was using the secular Hellenistic
meaning of diatheke to make an analogy then he was using it incorrectly. Lane points out that:
There is no evidence in classical papyriological sources to substantiate that a will
or testament was legally valid only when the testator died. A will became
operative as soon as it was properly drafted, witnessed, and notarized. Moreover,
inheritance did not occur only after the death of the testator, since it was common
legal practice for an inheritance, as parental distribution inter vivos (among the
survivors), to take place before death.23
If the author were using diatheke in the way the proponents of the testament/will translation
suggest that he was, then he was not using it a way that was consistent with the practice of wills
and testaments among Hellenistic Greeks.
Secondly, when verse 17 says that a diatheke takes effect only at death the Greek that it
uses there for at death is the plural epi nekrois. When more literally translated, that phrase
means on the basis of dead bodies. When using a will/testament translation it is very difficult

21

Robertson, Covenants, 140.

Vos says that, It will be observed that here the word must mean testament, because of the reference to the
death of the testator in Hebrews, 39.
23
Lane, Hebrews, 231.
22

to account for the plurality of this phrase since there can be only one testator who dies in order to
bring a will into effect.24
In response to Wiids argument that the universal quality of verses 16 and 17 supports
a background of Greek courts over the temple cultus, it can be pointed out that syntactical flow
of the passage refutes such a change in meaning. The tightly knit and logical movement of
the argument in the passage testifies against understanding the term in a different sense.25 The
presence of the conjunctions gar, epi, and hothen show the unity of verses 15-18 and make the
case for different uses of diatheke unlikely.26
Attridge argues that the presence of other legal technical terms in this section should lead
the reader towards the testament/will conclusion.27 Vos specifically explains: we have here
also the legal terminology: pheroo, to bring something to the proper notice; bebaios, of force;
ischuoo, to have validity; diathemenos, testator. We think it impossible that any competent
exegete should translate Diatheke in this context otherwise than as testament.28
Lincoln responds to this argument by pointing out that, although some of the terms can
be construed as having a Greek legal provenance, they fit better in the context of covenant and
the temple cultus29 For example, pheroo means to bring a report, claim, or charge and not
to confirm a death as the testament/will camp assumes.30 Additionally, Lane argues that the
use of the term pheroo was an intentional reference to the cultic use of pherein in the LXX where
it is linked with the act of offering a sacrifice.31

24

Lane, Hebrews, 232.

OBrien, Hebrews, 330.
26
Allen, Hebrews, 479.
27
Attridge, Hebrews, 253.
28
Vos, Hebrews, 39.
29
Lincoln, Translating, 25.
30
Hahn, Broken Covenant, 418.
31
Lane, Hebrews, 243.
25

Moffat argues that ho diathemenos is the technical term for a testator.32 Lane however
argues that tou diathemenou and ho diathemenos of verses 16 and 17 should be translated as the
one who ratifies and as the ratifier because such a translation more accurately takes into
account the fact that the LXX diatithesthai diatheken is the standard legal expression referring to
the inauguration or ratification of a covenant, corresponding to the Hebrew idiom karat berit (to
cut [i.e., make] a covenant; cf. Heb 8:10; 10:16).33 When examined more closely, the legal
terminologys Septuagintal roots actually end up supporting the covenant interpretation.
While Moffat may see a will/testament translation as an effective word play on the
double sense of the term diatheke, it is unlikely the author of Hebrews would take such an
approach with a concept so central to his message.34 To do so would be at the expense of the
conceptual unity that pervades his sermon.35 Even Behm, who agrees with the testament/will
interpretation, acknowledges that, in using such a play on words that the author jumps from the
religious to the current legal sense of diatheke, even at the risk of involving himself in
contradictions which show that there is no real parallel.36 Given how important the concept of
diatheke is to the author, the risk is too great for only a mediocre reward. Hahn rhetorically asks:
At a climactic point in the author's theological argument, wherein he attempts to demonstrate
the necessity of Christ's sacrificial death (9:16-17), must one abruptly switch to nonbiblical,
noncultic, secular Greco-Roman legal categories in order to interpret his meaning?37
For some, the testament/will translation seems like the only way to make sense of the
passage. Swetnam goes so far as to argue that it is essential to a right understanding of the New

32

Moffat, Hebrews, 127.

Lane, Hebrews, 231.
34
Moffat, Hebrews, 127.
35
Cockerill, Hebrews, 404.
36
Behm, "," 131.
37
Hahn, Broken Covenant, 425.
33

Covenant in Hebrews.38 While it may seem challenging to make sense out of the connection
between death and diatheke in verses 16 and 17, the answer is not to adjust our understanding of
the authors use of the word but instead is to reexamine our understanding of the concept of
covenant. Robertson states: Besides the consideration that testament completely ruptures the
train of thought in the passage and offers an ineffective argument based on a pun, the simple fact
of the matter is that Christs redemption is not accomplished by the making of a will.39
With all of these challenges associated with the testament/will translation, one might be
led to ask why anyone would consider it in the first place. The reason why some opt for it is
because the covenant translation is not without its challenges either.

CHALLENGES FOR THE COVENANT TRANSLATION

The two primary challenges to understanding diatheke as covenant in Hebrews 9:16-17
both revolve around the concept of death. Firstly, in order to make sense out of the covenant
ratification being dependent upon the death of the one who made it, proponents of the
covenant understanding point towards the slaughter of animals as part of the covenant making
ceremony as an explanation. Challengers like to point out however that not all covenants were
ratified by the ritual slaughter of animals.40 Secondly, while it is possible that the passage refers
to a metaphorical understanding of the death of the covenant maker, the language seems to
strongly indicate an actual death occurring.41

38

Swetnam, Interpretation, 374.

Robertson, Wilderness, 42.
40
Attridge, Hebrews, 254.
41
Vos, Hebrews, 39.
39

Two responses can be provided to these challenges. Robertson makes the case that death
is associated with every covenant. The covenant making ceremony required the covenant maker
to pass through the divided parts of dismembered animals in order to call down a curse upon
himself if he should ever violate the terms of the covenant. It is in this light that the Biblical
idiom to cut a covenant came to be. Integral to the very terminology which describes the
establishment of a covenantal relationship, Robertson argues, is the concept of a pledge to life
and death.42 In other words, Robertson makes the case that every major covenant in the OT was
a bond in blood sovereignly administered.43 The point being that even though not every OT
covenant involved a literal sacrifice of animals, it did involve a pledge to life and death that
referred back to such a death-oriented procedure. The implied reference to said sacrificial
procedure helps to make sense of how a covenant would be made firm over dead bodies and the
metaphorical death of the covenant maker implied in the making of the covenant.
Robertson explains that Christ died so that Gods people could be redeemed from the
transgressions committed under the first covenant and that this death was made necessary
because the death of the covenant-maker was brought forward at the point of covenantal
inauguration.44 Robertson also argues that verse 17 should also be understood in terms of
covenant inauguration by saying that a covenant does not become strong (valid) while the
covenant-make lives, because the making of a covenant must include the symbolic death of the
covenant-maker.45
The second response to the aforementioned challenges to the covenant interpretation
has been provided by Chris Hahn and supported in various degrees by Cockerill and OBrien. It

42

Robertson, Covenants, 10.

Robertson, Covenants, 4.
44
Robertson, Covenants, 142.
45
Robertson, Covenants, 143.
43

more sufficiently deals with the challenge that a symbolic death represented in a ritual does not
adequately do justice to the real death proposed in the Hebrews passage. Contrary to Robertson,
Hahn proposes that verses 16-17 are not describing what must be done in order to establish a
covenant but instead what must be done when a covenant is broken.46 Hahn argues that the
author of Hebrews is focusing specifically on the broken Sinai Covenant and the fate that was
foreshadowed by its inauguration.47
For their violation, Gods people deserve to die. Instead of simply stating that however,
the author of Hebrews says that their death needs to be pheresthai. In the ESV that word gets
translated as established but Hahn argues that it can also be translated as be borne. He sees it
as a strategic use of wording on the part of the author to demonstrate how someone must die for
a violation of the covenant without indicating who. In this way Jesus Christ is the one who has
borne the death that was deserved for the covenant violation of Gods people in the same way
that Gods Servant bore the sins of many though his suffering in Isaiah 53:4.48
Verse 17 supports this interpretation when you recognize it as referring to a broken
covenant. The broken Sinai Covenant would necessitate the death of the covenant makers and if
they were to remain alive it would call the validity of the covenant into question. By the
blessings and curses of said covenant being fulfilled, it is made firm. As a result, Gods just
character is maintained as the sovereign covenant administrator who fulfills the covenant
blessings and curses and the way in which Gods people receive mercy is explained.
These explanations are not without their own difficulties however. Even while agreeing
with Hahn generally, OBrien argues that his explanation of verse 17 as referring to Israel and

46

Hahn, Broken Covenant, 431.

Cockerill, Hebrews, 406.
48
Hahn, Broken Covenant, 433.
47

10

not the slain animals of a covenant oath feels forced.49 It is a challenging passage for which the
meaning of diatheke is not immediately self-evident, especially in our modern culture that has
very little understanding of OT covenants as they relate to death and simultaneously a very
pronounced and personal understanding of wills and testaments as they relate to death. That
being said, the covenant interpretation makes the most sense in light of the historic Septuagintbased theological argument of the author.

WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT?

At the end of this examination one might be led to wonder why the distinction between
covenant and will/testament in verses 16 and 17 really matters at all. In short, the reason
why it matters is Gods glory. While it is true that Jesus death enabled his people to receive an
inheritance similar to what one might receive as a result of the death of a testator, that is not the
point of the passage here. To apply said interpretation to this passage can lead to a truncated
understanding of Gods glory displayed therein. The sacrificial death of Christ was necessary in
order to free us from the consequences that we deserved as covenant violators and in order for
God to maintain his righteous character as a covenantal God. Through Jesus sacrificial death,
the first covenant has been fulfilled and Jesus has been made the mediator of the promised New
Covenant.

49

OBrien, Hebrews, 332.

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, David. Hebrews. NAC 35; Nashville: B&H, 2010.

Attridge, Harold. The Epistle to the Hebrews. hermeneia; Philadephia: Fortress, 1989.
Behm, Johannes. "," TDNT, 2. 131.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Cockerill, Gareth. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Duncan, J. Ligon. The Covenant Idea in Ante-Nicene Theology, Ph.D. diss., The University of
Edinburgh New College, 1995.
Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Guthrie, George. Hebrews. NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Hahn, Scott. A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15-22, CBQ
66 (2004) 416-436.
Hatch, Edwin. Essays in Biblical Greek. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2004.
Hughes, John. Hebrews IX 15ff and Galatians III 15ff: A Study in Covenant Practice and
Procedure, NovT 21:1 (1979) 27-96.
Hughes, Philip. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
Lane, William. Hebrews 9-13. WBC 47b; Dallas: Word Books, 1991.
Lincoln, Lucy. Translating Hebrews 9:15-22 in Its Hebraic Context, JOTT 12 (1999), 1-29.
Moffatt, James. The Epistle to the Hebrews. ICC; Edinburgh: T&T, 1979.
Murray, Scott. The Concept of in the Letter to the Hebrews, CTQ 66:1 (2002) 41-60.
O Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Hebrews. PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Phillips, Richard. Hebrews. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006.
Robertson, O. Palmer. Gods People in the Wilderness. Glasgow: Christian Focus, 2009.

12

_________. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg: P&R, 1980.

Swetnam, James. A Suggested Interpretation of Hebrews 9,15-18, CBQ 27 (1965) 373-390.
Vos, Geerhardus. Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke in Redemptive History and Biblical
Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin et al. Phillipsburg: P&R, 1980.
_________. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
Westcott, Brooke. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Wiid, J.S. The Testamental Significance of in Hebrews 9:15-22, Neotestamentica
26:1 (1992) 149-156.

13