God's arrangements with men, and the constitutions of society which are attributed to him. There is not a perfect propriety in this application of the word. Arrangement, or constitution, would represent the original more exactly. But the word has long been so used, and this usage is adopted in King James's translation, and carried through it every where, except in the passages above quoted. 4. The instances in which the word is translated testament are few, in comparison with the whole number of instances in which it occurs; and its meaning is the same in these cases as in the others. Here and elsewhere it signifies God's arrangements with men. (1.) The arrangement with Abraham, which is called God's covenant with that patriarch, as in Luke 1: 72, 73, To perform his mercy with our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to Abraham our father, to grant us to serve him without fear. So in Acts 3: 25; 7: 8; Gal. 3:17. (2.) The arrangement made with the Israelites by Moses. This is every where called by the Hebrew, translated in the Septuagint, Siaonan. The Mosaic covenant was the Mosaic body of laws or constitution. (3.) Last of all follow the Christian laws or constitution, which are also called by the same title. In Gal. 4: 2, the laws of Moses and of Christ are described as two covenants; one from Sinai, which produces children for servitude, and the other the Jerusalem above, which is the mother of us. The law of Christ is called the new covenant, predicted Jer. 31: 31-34, different from the covenant which God made with their fathers. This word, therefore, means an arrangement, constitution, or body of laws imposed on men, and denotes the different constitutions and bodies of laws established at different times; (1.) The Abrahamic laws; (2.) The Mosaic laws; (3.) Lastly, the laws of Christ. In the several passages at the head of this note, the common Greek title of all these laws is rendered in the common version, testament. The same objects are expressed as in other cases. It is manifest, therefore, that one of the renderings is erroneous. If διαθήκη is rightly rendered covenant every where else, it ought to be so rendered here; and if these passages are rightly rendered testament, the others ought to be so rendered; if neither is right, then we ought to adopt what is right. 5. Testament does not represent these constitutions correctly; they are not wills, disposing of property and privileges after one has died; God never dies; but they are laws. They are not covenants in the sense of mutual contracts, which require the consent of the second party for their validity and binding force; they are simply constitutions and bodies of laws, imposed by authority; and if called covenants, must be so called in this peculiar limited sense. Thus defined, and explained by the objects to which it is applied, covenant may perhaps be continued with propriety, though the more general term of arrangement answers most exactly to the original Greek and Hebrew, and constitution is most conformable to modern usage in respect to fundamental organic laws. Schemes of government in modern times are generally called constitutions. The passages under consideration, therefore, all require correction, by the substitution of covenant for testament. 6. With this correction and others, the passages read as follows: Matt. 26: 28, This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins. Luke 22: 20, And the cup in like manner, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant by my blood, which is poured out for you. 1 Cor. 11:25, In like manner the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant by my blood; this do as often as you drink, in remembrance of me. Heb. 9: 15-20, And for this reason he is the mediator of the new covenant, that [his] death having been for redemption from transgressions over the first covenant, the called might take the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a covenant, there must necessarily be brought the death of the covenanter; for a covenant is strong over the dead; since it is [otherwise] never strong when the covenant maker lives. Whence the first covenant was not dedicated without blood; for every commandment having been spoken according to the law by Moses to all the people, taking the blood of bullocks and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you. 7. The Mosaic law was not a testament, made valid by the death of the testator, but a constitution dedicated and ratified with the blood of sacrificial victims. Just as little is the law of Christ a testament. That, too, is a body of ordinances and instructions, not ratified by the death of Christ as a testator, but by the blood of Christ as a sacrifice. Christianity, therefore, is not a testament or will, nor are its sacred books testamentary documents. The name testament, applied to them in English, and the corresponding testamentum in Latin, do not agree with the facts. A more proper name would be covenant or constitution. NOTE XI. THE SUBSTITUTION OF BROTHERS FOR BRETHREN. BROTHER originally formed its plural by the addition of en, and all brothers were brethren. In the process of time the ancient plural was abandoned, and brothers used for brethren, in respect to relations by blood; but the old form, being in the Scriptures, has caused it to be retained with the other, as the form appropriated to members of the same churches, crafts, and societies. This is a departure from ancient usage, which applied the same forms to denote religious and society brothers as others. Besides the old form is less eligible than its successor in consequence of its adding a syllable to the singular, and otherwise changing the word, while the modern term only changes the final syllable. My version follows the original writers closely; who represented religious and society brothers by the same term as others. The method of the common version is a departure from their usage which requires correction; besides misrepresenting the originals, it contributes to form a religious dialect different from the secular one. This is not the policy of Christianity, and can only injure it. On every account, therefore, my improvement ought to be sustained. It adds both to the beauty of the style and the exactness of the translation; and is intrinsically a better form for practical use, giving to the language of religion an improvement which belongs to the common language, and which constitutes one of its graces. |