A Possible Exception to the WFC

I think that I might take an exception to the WCF Chapter 7, article 4 which reads:

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

I think it's a mistake to conflate the concept of covenant with the concept of testament. Jesus is our covenant mediator, not a testator.

Do you know if this is a common exception? Do you view this as a troubling exception?

TaylorSexton said:

I would check the citations used by the Westminster Confession in this section. They are as follows:
Heb. 9:15-17; Heb. 7:22; Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25

The writer to the Hebrews seems indeed to say that Christ is the testator of the testament.

Click to expand...

I would chalk that up to a bad translation. The word used in Hebrews 9 is διαθήκη which is everywhere else (including the other occurrences in Hebrews) translated as "covenant".

TaylorSexton said:

I don't think so. It is a linguistic fallacy to say that all words mean/translate as the exact same thing all the time. Meaning is not determined by a word alone, but also by the context. For instance, the word "bank" by itself is meaningless, because the number of possible definitions is enormous. But, if I told you that I went fishing at the "bank," you would surely not imagine that I went to the local J.P. Morgan Chase and whipped out a tackle box. How, then, did you know what I was talking about? Well, the context of "going fishing" zeroed in my particular use of the word "bank."

Click to expand...

I agree. But as I will show the context also demands that we translate διαθήκη as covenant.

Well, the context of Hebrews 9 is a legal "will," otherwise known as a "testament." BDAG, the standard Koine Greek lexicon, has "last will and testament" as their very first definition of διαθήκη, citing Heb. 9:16 as an example.

Click to expand...

The context of Hebrews 9 is not the context of a testament, but a covenant. The fact that BDAG is only able to cite the very passage in question as a defense of their definition is troubling. Let's take a closer look at the context...

1. Heb 9:1 starts out with covenantal language - "Now even the first covenant (diatheke) had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness."
   
   
2. Then in 9:15 (the verse immediately preceding the text in question) we have "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)."
   
   
3. Then we have (in the ESV) a bizarre mixture of covenant language with testament language though the same greek word is being used. We've got: "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 (diatheke) was inaugurated without blood." Since covenant and testament are two different concepts it's strange that the ESV would translate these verses in this way, especially since the same word (diatheke) stands behind both "covenant" and "testament".
   
   
4. A closer look at 16 and 17 reveals even more. The greek word for "established" found in 16 can also mean "represented" as you'll see in this article from the DBL:

DBL said:

5770 φέρομαι (pheromai), φέρω (pherō): vb.; ≡ Str 5342; TDNT 9.56—1. LN 15.11 (dep.) move (Ac 2:2); 2. LN 13.58 (dep.) progress (Heb 6:1); 3. LN 15.187 carry (Lk 23:26; Ac 4:34); 4. LN 15.166 bring, cause to move to a place (Mk 15:22); 5. LN 15.160 drive along, carry along (Ac 27:17); 6. LN 36.1 guide (Ac 15:29 v.r.); 7. LN 82.12 lead into (Ac 12:10); 8. LN 13.133 bring about, bring against (Jn 18:29); 9. LN 85.42 put, place an object (Jn 20:27); 10. LN 90.64 experience, undergo something burdensome (Heb 13:13); 11. LN 13.35 sustain, maintain (Heb 1:3); 12. LN 70.5 demonstrate reality of (Heb 9:16); 13. LN 31.55 accept, receive (Heb 12:20); 14. LN 25.176 endure, put up with (Ro 9:22); 15. LN 23.199 καρπὸν φέρω (karpon pherō), bear fruit (Jn 15:2, 4, 5, 8, 16; Mt 7:18 v.r. NA26)

Click to expand...

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Furthermore, the greek phrase that stands behind "only at death" in 17 is "epi nekrois". Literally translated, this means "over dead bodies". This matches the covenant concept much better.

So a better translation of Hebrews 9:16-17 would yield - "For where a covenant is involved, the death of the one who made it must be represented. For a covenant takes effect only over dead bodies..."

This, as you can see, matches covenant terminology very well and allows us to translate the word consistently in Hebrews 9 and not conflate two different concepts.

The fact that it is mostly translated as "covenant" is irrelevant, since, as I demonstrated above, meaning is primarily determined by context and not by a typical/common translation.

Click to expand...

I hope my contextual argument above has made my case more strong, but it's also worth noting that diatheke is not mostly translated as covenant. It is only translated as covenant except in Hebrews 9:16-17 which I have shown to be an illegitimate translation.