The Death of a Testator

EXPOSITORY ARTICLE – Hebrews 9
William Stewart | Odessa, Ontario

The book of Hebrews is a wonderful treatise on the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. It contrasts the the two God-established religions on several different counts: covenant, mediator, priesthood, tabernacle, sacrifices, promises, hope, etc.. Consistently, the writer concludes what is available in Christ is “better” (Hebrews 1:4; 7:19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:40; 12:24).

In Hebrews 9, having spoken of the Levitical High Priest’s duty to go beyond the veil on the day of atonement with a sacrifice for himself and the people, the author boldly affirms

...Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He has entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:11-12).

Jesus is not only the New Testament High Priest, but He is also the New Testament sacrifice. His service as High Priest is greater, for He has not entered an earthly sanctuary one day per year, but has gone into heaven itself perpetually. His sacrifice is far more effectual than the blood of goats, calves and bulls prescribed under the Old Covenant which only made people ceremonially clean (Hebrews 9:13; 10:4, 11); for He is the perfect Lamb of God, the prophesied Messiah, whose blood has power to remove sin (Hebrews 9:14-15; 10:12, 14).

In Hebrews 9:16, we find the source of our title. It reads, “For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of a testator.” A handful of English translations use the word “testator,” but the idea is consistently found among translations. For example, the ESV reads, “For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.” This text seems to speak of a concept we are very familiar with – a last will and testament. An individual makes a written record of what he wishes to be done with his possessions after his death. Though it is a legal document, and cannot be altered by any other than the one who wrote it, it is not a binding document until the death of the one who wrote it. But is that really the thought given in Hebrews 9:16-17, or have we (and perhaps the translators to some degree) approached the text with a western world bias?

Keep in mind, the book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians in the first century. Is the idea of a last will and testament even a concept they would be familiar with or accept? I do not want us to get bogged down looking at Jewish laws regarding inheritances, but suffice it to say, there are several Old Testament texts which address such (ie. Numbers 27:5-11; 36:5-9; Deuteronomy 21:15-17; 25:5-10; Ruth 4; 1 Kings 21:3; etc.). Pankauski Hauser PLLC, a Florida law firm, has an article dealing with wills and Jewish law. In it, they state,

Under Jewish law having a will that goes against these principles [the direction of the OT Law and the Talmud, wjs] is technically a violation of Jewish law to some observers. Worse the beneficiaries under our law would be considered as stealing from the estate under Jewish law. ₁

If such is the case, I doubt the Holy Spirit had the Hebrew writer portray the New Covenant as Jesus’ last will and testament, to be executed upon His death. In fact, I am not aware of any other place in the Bible which uses the idea of a last will and testament for the installation of the New Covenant.

I am not a Greek scholar, so please, do your own research, but the wording in the Greek is simply about the inception of a covenant, not the execution of a testator’s will. A word for word rendering of the text would say “where indeed a will death necessary to establish of the having made.” ₂ Without doubt, the wording is awkward. One could read that and think it is a testator dying and his will coming into force, but that is not the only option. The Greek word some translations render as “testator” appears seven times in the New Testament, four of those in the book of Hebrews. The only time it is translated as “testator” is in Hebrews 9:16-17. Elsewhere it is translated as “appoint,” “bestow,” “made,” or “make.” A death is appointed in Hebrews 9:16-17, but is it the death of a testator to bring a will in force?

Young’s Literal Translation reads, “for where a covenant is, the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary.” The “covenant-victim” Young speaks of is a sacrifice. A covenant is established by the death of a sacrifice. Recall in Genesis 15, when the LORD made a covenant with Abram, he was commanded to bring “a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon” (Genesis 15:9). These creatures were “covenant-victims,” their death was specifically associated with the establishment of the covenant between the LORD and Abram.

Back to Hebrews 9, if we keep reading in the context, it should become evident that the writer is not speaking of the execution of a dead man’s will, but the establishment of a covenant. Notice:

Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.' Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. (Hebrews 9:18-21).'

This refers to Exodus 24:5-8, where the Old Covenant was established between God and Israel. No man died to bring Moses’ law into force – an animal sacrifice was made and the blood of the covenant was sprinkled. While it is true a Man died to bring the gospel into force, please understand it required more than just death. If Jesus had accidentally fallen off a cliff to His death, or if He tragically died as an innocent bystander in a robbery gone wrong, or if He perished with pneumonia, or any number of other ways; it would not have resulted in the New Covenant coming into force. It was not merely His death, but Him dying as a sacrifice that brought about the New Covenant. As Moses’ law was established by “the blood of the covenant” (Hebrews 9:20; Exodus 24:8), Christ’s law would be established by “the blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:12, 14; 12:24; 13:20).

The contextual comparison with the Law negates the idea of a “last will and testament” and clearly indicates a covenant being instituted. It stands as further evidence of the advantage of Christianity over Judaism. The Law of Moses was installed through the sacrifice of calves and goats, and their blood being sprinkled. The Law of Christ came into force through the Son of God being sacrificed and His blood being sprinkled. Again, there is a better Mediator, a better covenant, a better sacrifice, and a better hope. Though the shedding of blood was necessary for purification (Hebrews 9:22), resulting in atonement (Leviticus 17:11), the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (Hebrews 10:4, 11). The animal sacrifices were powerless to provide true forgiveness. But notice what the writer says concerning the Christ,

...this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:12-14)

Okay, it is the establishment of a covenant, not the execution of a last will and testament; it is about the blood of a sacrifice being shed, not just about a death. You might be thinking, “Does it really matter? What difference does it make?” Consider a few things:

The testament/testator approach ignores the immediate context (compared with Moses establishing the Old Covenant), and the greater context (the “better” argument found throughout the book of Hebrews).
The testament/testator approach focuses on His death, but inherently takes away the force of Him dying as a sacrifice. Death alone was not enough.
The testament/testator approach disregards the importance of His blood. Blood is mentioned 15x in chapters 9 and 10. A testator may die without blood being shed; a covenant-victim (or sacrifice) cannot.

Do I think folks who have accepted and believed the testament/testator concept in Hebrews 9:16-17 don’t believe in the superiority of Christianity, or discount Jesus’ sacrifice or blood? No, not at all. The problem is, the testament/testator approach weakens the text and uses a man-made analogy that misses the mark. Paul told Timothy to “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Let us be diligent in our pursuit of truth. May we discover and accept the concepts and analogies the Lord uses to reveal His manifold wisdom to us. A correct contextual understanding of Hebrews 9:16-17 will serve to enrich our appreciation for the great plan of God.

______________________
1. pankauskilawfirm.com
2. biblehub.com

18.01.01 | GROW magazine