Smoodock's Blog

Most, but not all, of the New Covenant translators have Hebrews 9:16 appear as a last will and testament, but the New Covenant is not a last will and testament, and this can be shown logically from the text. If the New Covenant is a new last will and testament, what was the first last will and testament, and who was the testator who died to ratify or empower it? Certainly, no one believes the Old Covenant was a last will and testament. No one died to put it in force. It was an agreement between God and Israel, and it was ratified through a blood sacrifice. Therefore, if the Mosaic Covenant became old to give place for the new under Christ, then the New Covenant is new, in that it is a better covenant of the same genre as the old one (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6). The New Covenant cannot be “better” than the Old Covenant, unless both represented similar agreements between God and man. Therefore, since the Mosaic Covenant wasn’t a last will and testament, neither could the New Covenant be a last will and testament.

Notice how Bullinger’s and Young’s Literal translations of the Bible put it:

For where a covenant is, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim be brought in. (Hebrews 9:16 EWB-CB)

for where a covenant is , the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, (Hebrews 9:16 YLT)

Covenant agreements between men and God and men and other men were similar to what we find in Genesis 15:9-17, where God made a covenant with Abraham. When Abraham questioned God about how the Lord could possibly bless him, since Abraham had no children (Genesis 15:2-3), the Lord told Abraham to slay some animals for a covenant, which Abraham did and prepared them in halves one opposite the other in anticipation of the Lord and Abraham passing through or between the carcasses in order that the covenant could be ratified (Genesis 15:10). Nevertheless, the Lord came to Abraham while he slept and passed through the divided sacrifices alone (Genesis 15:17), indicating that he, the Lord, would be solely responsible for the covenant between him and Abraham. In other words, Abraham couldn’t break this covenant, because God made himself solely responsible for its fulfillment. Later, Abraham would recall this covenant, when he was asked by God to sacrifice Isaac, and the scriptures testify that he believed God (Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23). That is, he trusted God that he didn’t make the covenant with him in vain, and would raise Isaac from the dead in order that the promise could be fulfilled (Hebrews 11:17-19).

Now, notice how the Roman historian, Titus Livius, described a similar covenant between men:

When the bridge was completed the Roman army crossed over in the territory of the Insubres and took up a position five miles from Ictumuli, where Hannibal had his camp. As soon as he saw that a battle was imminent, he hastily recalled Maharbal and his troopers. Feeling that he could never say enough by way of admonition and encouragement to his soldiers, he ordered an assembly, and before the whole army offered definite rewards in the hope of which they were to fight. He said that he would give them land wherever they wished, in Italy, Africa, or Spain, which would be free from all taxation for the recipient and for his children; if any preferred money to land, he would satisfy his desires; if any of the allies wished to become Carthaginian citizens he would give them the opportunity; if any preferred to return to their homes he would take care that their circumstances should be such that they would never wish to exchange them with any of their countrymen. He even promised freedom to the slaves who followed their masters, and to the masters, for every slave freed, two more as compensation. To convince them of his determination to carry out these promises, he held a lamb with his left hand and a flint knife in his right and prayed to Jupiter and the other gods, that, if he broke his word and forswore himself they would slay him as he had slain the lamb. He then crushed the animal’s head with the flint. They all felt then that the gods themselves would guarantee the fulfillment of their hopes, and looked upon the delay in bringing on an action as delay in gaining their desires; with one mind and one voice they clamored to be led into battle. [Livy’s History of Rome: Book 21.45]

Thus, we are able to see that the blood of Jesus ratified the New Covenant. In the same sense, therefore, that Abraham was able to look back on the covenant God made with him in Genesis 15, promising an heir, and believed God showing he was willing to sacrifice that heir, so, too, we trust in the blood of Jesus that God will fulfill all the promises he has made to us under the New Covenant. The covenant victim, as we see in Livy’s history excerpt above, was meant to give hope to those to whom promises have been made. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus is our hope (1Timothy 1:1) and surety of the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22).