The Meaning of Hebrews 9:16 Explained

Hebrews 9:16

KJV: For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

YLT: for where a covenant is, the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary,

Darby: (For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must needs come in.

ASV: For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it.

KJV Reverse Interlinear

For  where  a testament  [is], there must also of necessity  be  the death  of the testator. 

What does Hebrews 9:16 Mean?

Context Summary

Hebrews 9:11-20 - The Blood Which Sealed The New Covenant
We are led to consider Christ's high-priestly work. The scene for it is no edifice made with hands in this transitory world, but eternal and divine. His stay in the Holiest is not brief, hurried, and repeated year by year, but once for all He enters by virtue of His own blood. That blood cleanses not only from ceremonial guilt, but from moral and spiritual pollution. A will or testament comes into force when the testator dies; so the will of the eternal Father toward us has been made valid through the blood of Jesus.
Consider, then, the Eternal or Timeless Spirit. What Jesus did on the Cross was the doing of God through His Spirit. The Atonement was not wrought by the dying Sufferer to appease God, but to express God as reconciling the world to Himself. The Timeless Cross. It belongs to no one age, but "towers o'er the wrecks of time," and is as near us as to the early Church. The Timeless Christ. Cast yourself out of yourself and into Him; out of the fret of the time-sphere into the freedom and ecstasy of the eternal! [source]

Chapter Summary: Hebrews 9

1  The description of the rites and sacrifices of the law;
11  which are far inferior to the dignity and perfection of the sacrifice of Christ

Greek Commentary for Hebrews 9:16

A testament [διατηκη]
The same word occurs for covenant (Hebrews 9:15) and will (Hebrews 9:16). This double sense of the word is played upon also by Paul in Galatians 3:15. We say today “The New Testament” (Novum Testamentum) rather than “ The New Covenant.” Both terms are pertinent. That made it Genitive of the articular second aorist middle participle of διατιτημι — diatithēmi from which διατηκη — diathēkē comes. The notion of will here falls in with κληρονομια — klēronomia (inheritance, 1 Peter 1:4) as well as with τανατος — thanatos (death). Of force Stable, firm as in Hebrews 3:6, Hebrews 3:14. Where there hath been death “In the case of dead people.” A will is only operative then. For doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth? This is a possible punctuation with μη ποτε — mē pote in a question (John 7:26). Without the question mark, it is a positive statement of fact. Aleph and D read τοτε — tote (then) instead of ποτε — pote The use of μη — mē in a causal sentence is allowable (John 3:18, οτι μη — hoti mē). [source]
There must also of necessity be the death of the testator [θάνατου ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου]
Rend. it is necessary that the death of the institutor (of the covenant ) should be borne. With the rendering testament, φέρεσθαι is well-nigh inexplicable. If covenant the meaning is not difficult. If he had meant to say it is necessary that the institutor die, he might better have used γένεσθαι : “it is necessary that the death of the institutor take place ”; but he meant to say that it was necessary that the institutor die representatively; that death should be borne for him by an animal victim. If we render testament, it follows that the death of the testator himself is referred to, for which θάνατου φέρεσθαι is a very unusual and awkward expression. Additional Note on Hebrews 9:16Against the rendering testament for διαθήκη , and in favor of retaining covenant, are the following considerations: (a) The abruptness of the change, and its interruption of the line of reasoning. It is introduced into the middle of a continuous argument, in which the new covenant is compared and contrasted with the Mosaic covenant (8:6-10:18). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(b) The turning-point, both of the analogy and of the contrast, is that both covenants were inaugurated and ratified by death: not ordinary, natural death, but sacrificial, violent death, accompanied with bloodshedding as an essential feature. Such a death is plainly indicated in Hebrews 9:15. If διαθήκη signifies testament, θάνατον deathin Hebrews 9:16must mean natural death without bloodshed. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(c) The figure of a testament would not appeal to Hebrews in connection with an inheritance. On the contrary, the idea of the κληρονομία was always associated in the Hebrew mind with the inheritance of Canaan, and that inheritance with the idea of a covenant. See Deuteronomy 4:20-23; 1 Chronicles 16:15-18; Psalm 105:8-11. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(d) In lxx, from which our writer habitually quotes, διαθήκη has universally the meaning of covenant. It occurs about 350 times, mostly representing בְּרִית, covenant. In the Apocryphal books it has the same sense, except in Exodus href="/desk/?q=ex+30:26&sr=1">Exodus 30:26; Numbers 14:44; 2 Kings 6:15; Jeremiah 3:16; Malachi 3:1; Luke 1:72, Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8. Also in N.T. quotations from the O.T., where, in its translation of the O.T., it uses foedus. See Jeremiah 31:31, cit. Hebrews 8:8. For διατιθέσθαι of making a covenant, see Hebrews 8:10; Acts 3:25; Hebrews 10:16. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(e) The ratification of a covenant by the sacrifice of a victim is attested by Genesis 15:10; Psalm 1:5; Jeremiah 34:18. This is suggested also by the phrase כָּרַֽת בְּרִֽת, to cut a covenant, which finds abundant analogy in both Greek and Latin. Thus we have ὅρκια τάμνειν tocut oaths, that is, to sacrifice a victim in attestation (Hom. Il. ii. 124; Od. xxiv. 483: Hdt. vii. 132). Similarly, σπονδὰς letus cut (make ) a league (Eurip. Hel. 1235): φίλια τέμνεσθαι tocement friendship by sacrificing a victim; lit. to cut friendship (Eurip. Suppl. 375). In Latin, foedus ferire to strike a league foedus ictum a ratified league, ratified by a blow (ictus ). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(f) If testament is the correct translation in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, the writer is fairly chargeable with a rhetorical blunder; for Hebrews 9:18ff. is plainly intended as a historical illustration of the propositions in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, and the illustration turns on a point entirely different from the matter illustrated. The writer is made to say, “A will is of no force until after the testator's death; therefore the first covenant was ratified with the blood of victims.sa180 [source]

For where a testament is [ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη]
“The English Version has involved this passage in hopeless obscurity by introducing the idea of a testament and a testator.” This statement of Rendall (Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 159) is none too strong. That interpretation, however, is maintained by a very strong array of modern expositors. It is based upon κληρονομία inheritanceit being claimed that this word changes the whole current of thought. Hence it is said that the new covenant established by Christ is here represented as a testamentary disposition on his part, which could become operative in putting the heirs in possession of the inheritance only through the death of Christ. See Additional Note at the end of this chapter. [source]

Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Hebrews 9:16

Romans 9:4 The covenants [αἱ διαθῆκαι]
See on Matthew 26:28. Those concluded with the patriarchs since Abraham. See Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:17; Ephesians 2:12. The plural never occurs in the Old Testament. See on Hebrews 9:16. [source]
1 Corinthians 7:26 The present distress [τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην]
Ἑνεστῶσαν presentmay also express something which is not simply present, but the presence of which foreshadows and inaugurates something to come. Hence it may be rendered impending or setting in. See on Romans 8:38. Ἁνάγκη means originally force, constraint, necessity, and this is its usual meaning in classical Greek; though in the poets it sometimes has the meaning of distress, anguish, which is very common in Hellenistic Greek. Thus Sophocles, of the approach of the crippled Philoctetes: “There falls on my ears the sound of one who creeps slow and painfully ( κατ ' ἀνάγκην .” “Philoctetes,” 206); and again, of the same: “Stumbling he cries for pain ( ὑπ ' ἀνάγκας ,” 215). In the Attic orators it occurs in the sense of blood-relationship, like the Latin necessitudo a binding tie. In this sense never in the New Testament. For the original sense of necessity, see Matthew 18:7; Luke 14:18; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Hebrews 9:16. For distress, Luke 21:23; 1 Thessalonians 3:7. The distress is that which should precede Christ's second coming, and which was predicted by the Lord himself, Matthew 24:8sqq. Compare Luke 21:23-28. [source]
Galatians 3:15 Covenant [διαθήκην]
Not testament. See on Matthew 26:28, and see on Hebrews 9:16. [source]
Galatians 3:15 Though it be but a man‘s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed [ομως αντρωπου κεκυρωμενην διατηκην]
Literally, “Yet a man‘s covenant ratified.” On Διατηκη — Diathēkē as both covenant and will see note on Matthew 26:28; note on 1 Corinthians 11:25; note on 2 Corinthians 3:6; notes on Hebrews 9:16. On κυροω — kuroō to ratify, to make valid, see note on 2 Corinthians 2:8. Perfect passive participle here, state of completion, authoritative confirmation. Maketh it void (ατετει — athetei). See note on Galatians 2:21 for this verb. Both parties can by agreement cancel a contract, but not otherwise. Addeth thereto Present middle indicative of the double compound verb επιδιατασσομαι — epidiatassomai a word found nowhere else as yet. But inscriptions use διατασσομαι διαταχισ διαταγη διαταγμα — diatassomaiεπι — diataxisδιαταχεις — diatagēdiatagma with the specialized meaning to “determine by testamentary disposition” (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 90). It was unlawful to add (epi) fresh clauses or specifications (diataxeis). [source]
Hebrews 9:18 Neither the first testament was dedicated without blood [οὐδὲ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος ἐνκεκαίνισται]
Rend. “neither hath the first (covenant) been inaugurated without blood.” There is surely no excuse for inserting testament here, as A.V., since the allusion is clearly to the ratification of a covenant with blood. But further, as this and the verses immediately following are intended to furnish a historical illustration of the statements in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, we seem forced either to render covenant in those verses, or to assume that the transaction here related was the ratification of a will and testament, or to find our writer guilty of using an illustration which turns on a point entirely different from the matter which he is illustrating. Thus: a testament is of force after men are dead. It has no force so long as the testator is alive. Wherefore, the first covenant was ratified by slaying victims and sprinkling their blood. For the incident see Exodus 24:8. Ἐνκαινίζειν only here and Hebrews 10:20. lxx, to renew, 1 Samuel 11:14; 2 Chronicles 15:8; Psalm 51:10: to dedicate, 1 Kings 8:63; John href="/desk/?q=joh+10:22&sr=1">John 10:22. Rend. οὐδὲ neitheras A.V., and not not even, in which case the meaning would be, “not even the first covenant, although its ministries did not perfect the worshipper as touching the conscience,” a thought which would be foreign to the point, which is merely the analogy in the matter of death. [source]
Hebrews 9:16 There must also of necessity be the death of the testator [θάνατου ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου]
Rend. it is necessary that the death of the institutor (of the covenant ) should be borne. With the rendering testament, φέρεσθαι is well-nigh inexplicable. If covenant the meaning is not difficult. If he had meant to say it is necessary that the institutor die, he might better have used γένεσθαι : “it is necessary that the death of the institutor take place ”; but he meant to say that it was necessary that the institutor die representatively; that death should be borne for him by an animal victim. If we render testament, it follows that the death of the testator himself is referred to, for which θάνατου φέρεσθαι is a very unusual and awkward expression. Additional Note on Hebrews 9:16Against the rendering testament for διαθήκη , and in favor of retaining covenant, are the following considerations: (a) The abruptness of the change, and its interruption of the line of reasoning. It is introduced into the middle of a continuous argument, in which the new covenant is compared and contrasted with the Mosaic covenant (8:6-10:18). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(b) The turning-point, both of the analogy and of the contrast, is that both covenants were inaugurated and ratified by death: not ordinary, natural death, but sacrificial, violent death, accompanied with bloodshedding as an essential feature. Such a death is plainly indicated in Hebrews 9:15. If διαθήκη signifies testament, θάνατον deathin Hebrews 9:16must mean natural death without bloodshed. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(c) The figure of a testament would not appeal to Hebrews in connection with an inheritance. On the contrary, the idea of the κληρονομία was always associated in the Hebrew mind with the inheritance of Canaan, and that inheritance with the idea of a covenant. See Deuteronomy 4:20-23; 1 Chronicles 16:15-18; Psalm 105:8-11. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(d) In lxx, from which our writer habitually quotes, διαθήκη has universally the meaning of covenant. It occurs about 350 times, mostly representing בְּרִית, covenant. In the Apocryphal books it has the same sense, except in Exodus href="/desk/?q=ex+30:26&sr=1">Exodus 30:26; Numbers 14:44; 2 Kings 6:15; Jeremiah 3:16; Malachi 3:1; Luke 1:72, Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8. Also in N.T. quotations from the O.T., where, in its translation of the O.T., it uses foedus. See Jeremiah 31:31, cit. Hebrews 8:8. For διατιθέσθαι of making a covenant, see Hebrews 8:10; Acts 3:25; Hebrews 10:16. -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(e) The ratification of a covenant by the sacrifice of a victim is attested by Genesis 15:10; Psalm 1:5; Jeremiah 34:18. This is suggested also by the phrase כָּרַֽת בְּרִֽת, to cut a covenant, which finds abundant analogy in both Greek and Latin. Thus we have ὅρκια τάμνειν tocut oaths, that is, to sacrifice a victim in attestation (Hom. Il. ii. 124; Od. xxiv. 483: Hdt. vii. 132). Similarly, σπονδὰς letus cut (make ) a league (Eurip. Hel. 1235): φίλια τέμνεσθαι tocement friendship by sacrificing a victim; lit. to cut friendship (Eurip. Suppl. 375). In Latin, foedus ferire to strike a league foedus ictum a ratified league, ratified by a blow (ictus ). -DIVIDER-
-DIVIDER-
(f) If testament is the correct translation in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, the writer is fairly chargeable with a rhetorical blunder; for Hebrews 9:18ff. is plainly intended as a historical illustration of the propositions in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, and the illustration turns on a point entirely different from the matter illustrated. The writer is made to say, “A will is of no force until after the testator's death; therefore the first covenant was ratified with the blood of victims.sa180 [source]

Hebrews 12:24 Blood of sprinkling [αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ]
Ῥαντισμός sprinklingonly here and 1 Peter 1:2, see note. The phrase blood of sprinkling N.T.oolxx, where we find ὕδωρ ῥαντισμοῦ waterof sprinkling, Numbers 19:9, Numbers 19:13, Numbers 19:20, Numbers 19:21. For the verb ῥαντίζειν tosprinkle, see on Hebrews 9:13. The mention of blood naturally follows that of a covenant, since no covenant is ratified without blood (Hebrews 9:16). The phrase is sufficiently explained by Hebrews 9:16-22. [source]
Hebrews 7:22 Was Jesus made a surety of a better testament [κρείττονος διαθήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυος Ἰησοῦς]
Ἔγγυος suretyN.T.oComp. 2 Maccabees 10:28. Occasionally in Class., where also occur ἐγγυᾶν togive as a pledge, ἐγγύη surety ἐγγύησις givingin surety, ἐγγυητής onewho gives security, and ἐγγητός plightedalways of a wife. The idea underlying all these words is that of putting something into one's hand ( ἐν in γύαλον hollowof the hand ) as a pledge. For testament rend. covenant and see on Hebrews href="/desk/?q=heb+9:16&sr=1">Hebrews 9:16. The thought of a covenant is introduced for the first time, and foreshadows Hebrews 8:6-13. It adds to the thought of the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood that of the inferiority of the dispensation which it represented. [source]
Hebrews 13:20 That great shepherd of the sheep [τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν]
The Greek order is, “the shepherd of the sheep the great (shepherd).” Comp. John 10:2, John 10:11, John 10:14; 1 Peter 2:25, and see Isaiah 63:11. Of God, Zechariah href="/desk/?q=zec+9:11&sr=1">Zechariah 9:11. The phrase eternal covenant N.T.oCommon in lxx; see Genesis 9:16; Genesis 17:19; Leviticus 24:8; 2 Samuel 23:5; Jeremiah 32:40; Ezekiel 16:60. Const. with the great shepherd of the sheep. It may be granted that the raising of Christ from the dead, viewed as the consummation of the plan of salvation, was in the sphere of the blood of the covenant; nevertheless, the covenant is nowhere in the N.T. associated with the resurrection, but frequently with death, especially in this epistle. See Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, Hebrews 9:20. The connection of the blood of the covenant with Christ's pastoral office gives a thoroughly scriptural sense, and one which exactly fits into the context. Christ becomes the great shepherd solely through the blood of the covenant. Comp. Acts 20:28. Through this is brought about the new relation of the church with God described in Hebrews 8:10ff. This tallies perfectly with the conception of “the God of peace”; and the great Shepherd will assert the power of the eternal covenant of reconciliation and peace by perfecting his flock in every good work to do his will, working in them that which is well pleasing in his sight. With this agree Jeremiah 50:5, Jeremiah 50:19; Ezekiel 34:25, and the entire chapter, see especially Ezekiel 34:12-15, Ezekiel 34:23, Ezekiel 34:31. In these verses the Shepherd of the Covenant appears as guiding, tending his flock, and leading them into fair and safe pastures. Comp. Isaiah 63:11-14, and Revelation 7:17, see note on ποιμανεῖ shallshepherd. Ἑν αἵματι “in the blood,” is in virtue of, or in the power of the blood. [source]
Hebrews 9:16 A testament [διατηκη]
The same word occurs for covenant (Hebrews 9:15) and will (Hebrews 9:16). This double sense of the word is played upon also by Paul in Galatians 3:15. We say today “The New Testament” (Novum Testamentum) rather than “ The New Covenant.” Both terms are pertinent. That made it Genitive of the articular second aorist middle participle of διατιτημι — diatithēmi from which διατηκη — diathēkē comes. The notion of will here falls in with κληρονομια — klēronomia (inheritance, 1 Peter 1:4) as well as with τανατος — thanatos (death). Of force Stable, firm as in Hebrews 3:6, Hebrews 3:14. Where there hath been death “In the case of dead people.” A will is only operative then. For doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth? This is a possible punctuation with μη ποτε — mē pote in a question (John 7:26). Without the question mark, it is a positive statement of fact. Aleph and D read τοτε — tote (then) instead of ποτε — pote The use of μη — mē in a causal sentence is allowable (John 3:18, οτι μη — hoti mē). [source]

What do the individual words in Hebrews 9:16 mean?

Where for [there is] a will [the] death [it is] necessary to establish of the [one] having made [it]
Ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου

Ὅπου  Where 
Parse: Adverb
Root: ὅπου  
Sense: where, whereas.
διαθήκη  [there  is]  a  will 
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Singular
Root: διαθήκη  
Sense: a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will.
θάνατον  [the]  death 
Parse: Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular
Root: θάνατος 
Sense: the death of the body.
ἀνάγκη  [it  is]  necessary 
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Singular
Root: ἀνάγκη  
Sense: necessity, imposed either by the circumstances, or by law of duty regarding to one’s advantage, custom, argument.
φέρεσθαι  to  establish 
Parse: Verb, Present Infinitive Middle or Passive
Root: φέρω  
Sense: to carry.
τοῦ  of  the  [one] 
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Singular
Root:  
Sense: this, that, these, etc.
διαθεμένου  having  made  [it] 
Parse: Verb, Aorist Participle Middle, Genitive Masculine Singular
Root: διατίθεμαι 
Sense: to arrange, dispose of, one’s own affairs.

What are the major concepts related to Hebrews 9:16?

Loading Information...